Porterville City Council
August 29, 2023

CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL, 291 N. MAIN STREET

PORTERVILLE, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 29, 2023, 5:00 PM
The City of Porterville is allowing for and encouraging electronic viewing of City Council Meetings. Porterville City Council Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5KuhSrNMNL9nwHJVtnJvvA Alternatively, this meeting will also be available via Zoom as a courtesy using the following information
City of Porterville – City Council Study Session of August 29, 2023 Please use the following link below to join the webinar:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86985569003?pwd=bXV0YUYxRVk3c0oyYlVDbWduMHFpUT09 Or via Telephone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 869 8556 9003 Passcode: 448794 Call to Order
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance Led by Mayor Martha A. Flores
Invocation

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This is the opportunity to address the Council on any matter of interest, whether on the agenda or not. Unless additional time is authorized by the Council, all commentary shall be limited to three minutes.

STUDY SESSION

1. Consideration for Establishing Water/ Recycled Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Rates Re: Review of the Water/Recycled Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste reports completed by City, Carollo Engineers, R3 Consulting Group; and provide direction on the alternatives and scenarios for implementing Proposition 218 notification for Water/Recycled Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste rate increases.

ADJOURNMENT - to the meeting of September 5, 2023, at 5:30 p.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the California Ralph M. Brown Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, or to be able to access this agenda and documents in the agenda packet, please contact the Office of City Clerk at (559) 782-7464.

Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting and/or provision of an appropriate alternative format of the agenda and documents in the agenda packet.

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Office of City Clerk, 291 North Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, and on the City’s website at www.ci.porterville.ca.us.

Item No. 1.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA – AUGUST 29, 2023
SUBJECT: Consideration for Establishing Water/ Recycled Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Rates
SOURCE: Public Works
COMMENT: Staff requests that the City Council consider establishing Water/Recycled Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste Rates.

Recycled Water - Carollo Engineers completed the Recycled Water Feasibility Study in October 2019. Its primary objective is to identify and analyze opportunities for supplying recycled water in and around the city of Porterville.

The City is near completion of its .308 million gallons per day (MGD) tertiary water treatment facility, scheduled to operate by the end of 2023. Implementing the recycled water system will enable the City to reduce potable water use, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the distribution of water supply. As future City projects move toward complete tertiary treatment of its wastewater, recycled water will serve a crucial role in augmenting or offsetting potable water supplies. Recycled water provides new opportunities and new challenges for water and wastewater agencies providing recycled water. In light of these challenges, determining the recycled water pricing mechanism and rate structure to recover the cost of the production and distribution of recycled water must be implemented.

Sewer Rate Study - Carollo Engineers completed the Sewer Rate Study in May 2023. The Sewer Rate Study's objective is to ensure that revenues cover the cost of services, meet the debt coverage and reserve requirements, and provide revenue for capital improvements. In its findings, Carollo determined that under existing rates, revenue is insufficient to cover operation and capital costs, debt payments, and debt service coverage throughout the Study period. Carollo Engineers developed three rate structure alternatives that provide adequate revenue to address annual debt service coverage issues and provide the City with the financial capacity for future operations and capital costs.

Alternative 1: Existing Sewer Rate Structure
Residential (Single-family, Multifamily, and Trailer Park) customers are charged a flat monthly rate for wastewater services regardless of the amount of discharge contributed to the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP).

Alternative 1 maintains the existing rate structure and recovers the total residential class' proportionate costs. Single-family residential rates will increase 89.8% over five years, whereas Multifamily and Trailer Park rates will increase 89.9% over five years.

Item No. 1.

Non-residential (Commercial, Industrial, and Septic Tank Haulers) customers are currently charged a volumetric rate that recovers their total cost of service.

Non-residential sewer rates are calculated by dividing the cost per customer class by the respective flow impacts on the WWTP treatment process.

Alternative 2: Cost of Service-Based Sewer Rates
This alternative represents the cost of service-based sewer rates. These costbased sewer rates align with California's Proposition 218 guidelines. Singlefamily residential rates will increase by 130% over five years, whereas Multifamily and Trailer Parks will see an initial decrease of 22%, followed by a

31.9% increase over four years. Non-residential sewer rates under Alternative 2 remain constant with rates presented under Alternative 1.

Alternative 3: Residential Consolidation-Based Sewer Rates This alternative represents sewer rates with a uniform residential rate (Single Family, Multi Family, and Trailer Park). Single-family residential rates will increase 85.7% over five years, whereas Multifamily and Trailer Park rates will increase 95.5% over five years. Non-residential sewer rates under Alternative 3 remain constant with those sewer rates presented under Alternatives 1 and 2.

The City's sewer rates have not been increased since 2003 and are below average in the region. To meet future financial needs, a rate increase is projected to meet the significant additional revenues needed for capital improvement costs, improved operations, and maintain prudent operating reserves. While rate increases are projected to address its financial requirements, the City's sewer rates would remain within the region's industrystandard range of rates.

Solid Waste (Refuse) Study - R3 Consulting Group completed the Solid Waste (Refuse) Rate Study in February 2023. The Rate Study provided a detailed rate analysis to measure revenues needed to provide the regulated levels of service while also helping establish fair, equitable, stable, and defensible solid waste user rates. In its findings, R3 determined that a rate increase is needed to fund existing operations and offset the current Fiscal Year revenue shortfalls. The Rate Study provides the following rate adjustment scenarios for the Council's consideration.

Scenario 1: This scenario maintains the existing rate structure. In this scenario, rates are insufficient to support the Division's current operations as a budget shortfall of approximately $145,000 (2%) is projected for Fiscal Year (FY) 22-

23. The cumulative five-year rate increase is 0%.

Scenario 2: This scenario would increase the rates by 50% effective January 1, 2024, followed by a 5% rate increase on July 1, 2024, followed by a 5% increase each of the following three years. The five-year cumulative rate increase is 82%.

Scenario 3: This scenario would increase the rates by 30% effective January 1, 2024, followed by a 25% rate increase on July 1, 2024, followed by 5% rate Item No. 1.
increases each of the following three years. The five-year cumulative rate increase is 88%.

Scenario 4: This scenario would increase the rates by 25% effective January 1, 2024, followed by a 25% rate increase on July 1, 2024, followed by a 10% rate increase on July 1, 2025, followed by a 5% rate increase each of the following two years. The five-year cumulative rate increase is 89%.

The City's solid waste rates have not been increased since 2006 and are among the lowest in the region. To meet future financial needs, a rate increase of 50% is projected to meet the significant additional revenues needed for vehicle replacement, capital improvement costs, improved operation, support resources to meet industry standards, comply with SB 1383 Organics Recovery, and maintain prudent operating reserves.

While rate increases are projected to address its financial requirements, the City's residential and commercial rates would be well within the region's industry-standard range of rates, even with a 50% rate increase. The City's residential and commercial solid waste collection operations are expected to change significantly over the next several years as the City implements the programs and services necessary to comply with regulatory requirements.

RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Review Water/Recycled Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste
reports completed by City, Carollo Engineers, R3 Consulting Group, and

2. Provide staff with direction on the alternatives and scenarios for implementing Proposition 218 notification for
Water/Recycled Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste rate increases.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Proposition 218 Notice on Proposed New Recycled Water Rates

2. Sewer Utility Rate Study

3. Solid Waste Rate Study and Financial Plan

4. Porterville - Operations Review

5. Letter Report Porterville - Collection System Outsourcing Analysis
Appropriated/Funded:

Review By:

Department Director:

Michael Knight, Public Works Director
Final Approver: John Lollis, City Manager
$
YOUR RIGHTS: If you are the record owner of a property subject to the proposed rates or a tenant directly liable for the payment of water service fees (i.e., a customer of record), you may submit a written protest against the proposed Recycled water rate. Only one written protest per parcel will be counted. Written protests may be submitted by mail to the City Clerk, City of Porterville, 291 North Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, or in person at the public hearing, so long as they are received prior to the conclusion of public testimony at the public hearing. Please identify on the front of the envelope "Water Rate Protest" for any protest, whether mailed or submitted in person to the City Clerk. Please indicate your name and either the address(es) or water/sewer account number(s) of your property or properties. Protests submitted verbally, by e-mail, facsimile, or other electronic means will not be accepted.

Each protest must (1) be in writing; (2) state opposition to the proposed recycled water rate; (3) provide the location of the owner's identified parcel (by assessor's parcel number or street address); and (4) include the original signature of the property owner or customer of record submitting the protest. Only one written protest per parcel will be counted.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council will consider adopting the proposed water rate outlined on the reverse side of this notice. If, at the close of the public hearing, written protests against the proposed water rate are submitted by a majority of record owners of affected parcels and customers of record (50% plus one), the City will not approve the proposed water rates. If, at the close of the public hearing, written protests against the proposed rate increases do not present a majority of record owners of affected parcels and customers of record, the City Council will be authorized to impose the proposed rate up to the amounts proposed. If adopted, the new recycled water rate will be effective January 1, 2024.

THE NEED TO ESTABLISH RECYCLED WATER RATE AND METER FEE: The City of Porterville completed a Recycled Water Feasibility Study in October 2019. Its primary objective is to identify and analyze opportunities for supplying recycled water in and around the City of Porterville. The City is near completion of its .308 Million Gallon-a-day (MGD) Tertiary Water Treatment Facility, which is scheduled for operation by the end of 2023. Implementing recycled water will enable the City to offset potable water use, thereby enhancing local sustainability and drought impact resiliency to customers for irrigation and industrial uses. The City makes every effort to provide its customers with water in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. The City continuously evaluates operational costs and utilization of assets to maintain infrastructure efficiencies and improve water supply distribution. Tertiary Treatment of the City's Wastewater Effluent to recycled water will be crucial in augmenting or offsetting potable water supplies. The implementation of recycled water requires the proposed recycled water pricing mechanism and rate structure to recover the cost of production, distribution, and maintenance of recycled water.

PROPOSED WATER / RECYCLED WATER RATE FEE MODIFICATION: The City of Porterville's recycled water rate revenue will fund the costs of providing recycled water service. Therefore, recycled water rates must be set at sufficient levels to recover the cost of treatment, operation, maintenance, and capital improvement. Recycled water rates comprise three parts: recycled water consumption fee, recycled water meter service fees, and recycled water backflow device fee.

PROPOSED RATES FOR 2024: Recycled water usage revenues pay for the costs of delivering recycled water and are based on the quantity of recycled water consumed as measured by your water meter. The proposed water rates include (1) a monthly meter charge and (2) a water consumption use charge. The meter charge is a fixed amount calculated to recover a portion of the City's fixed costs of operating and maintaining the recycled water system. It is established on the basis of the size of the water meter serving the property.

The fixed meter charge is due regardless of the quantity of water consumed. The water use charge is the rate the City charges per unit of water consumed (one unit of water equals 748 gallons or 100 cubic feet). The charge will differ from one bill to another, depending on the water consumed and your meter's size. The City Council will consider a recycled water rate structure of $1.91 per unit for irrigation and industrial uses. In addition to consumption, a proportional rate structure by meter size is also being considered for all new meter ranges not previously covered by existing service fees. Recycled water service fees, based on meter size, pay for fixed costs of providing service and do not vary with the quantity of water purchased.

BILL IMPACT: The proposed Fee Modification for irrigation and industrial uses on a facility with a 1" recycled water meter and consuming 22 units (16,456 gallons or 2,200 cubic feet) of recycled water in a billing cycle will see a monthly bill of $60.10. Please note that billing accounts will be lower or higher than shown depending on the actual quantity of water used.

Assistance can be provided to those requiring accommodations for disabilities in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Accommodations must be requested at least 48 hours in advance by calling: The City Clerks Office at (559) 782-7476 PROPOSITION 218 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSE NEW RECYLED WATER RATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Porterville will hold a Public Hearing on November XX, 2023, at its regularly scheduled Council meeting that starts at 6:30pm in the City Council Chambers, located at 291 North Main Street, Porterville, CA 93257, to consider the adoption of New Recycled water rates service fees. The purpose of the public hearing is to take written and oral comments and consider all written protests against the proposed rate implementations. Written protests must be filed with the City of Porterville City Clerk.

City staff can assist you with answering any questions about your water bill. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice or the rates applicable to your property, please contact Field Services at (559) 782-7514.

METERED RATES Proposed Metered Rates per Fiscal Year (FY) Potable Water Rate Schedule
Current
Rates
FY 2023/24
Proposed
Rates
FY 2023/24
Recycled Water Rate Schedule
Proposed
Rates
FY 2023/24

WATER CONSUMPTION CHARGE
(per 100 cubic feet) $1.91 WATER CONSUMPTION CHARGE(per 100 cubic feet) $1.91 PHASE V RATE INCREASE $2.29
Less than 1" $18.08 Less than 1" $18.08
1" $19.89 1" $19.89
1 1/4” $24.40 1 1/4” $24.40
1 1/2” $28.92 1 1/2” $28.92
2" $36.14 2" $36.14
3" $48.79 3" $48.79
4" $59.63 4" $59.63
6" $72.29 6" $72.29
8" $90.36 8" $90.36
10" $100.40 10" $100.40
BACKFLOW DEVICES Proposed Backflow Device Rates per Fiscal Year (FY) Potable Water Rate Schedule
Current
Rates
FY 2023/24
No Proposed
Rate Change
FY 2023/24
Recycled Water Device Rate
Schedule
Proposed
Rates
FY 2023/24

DEVICE SIZE
1" $11.49 $11.49
1 1/2” – 2 1/2” $16.09 $16.09
3" $18.44 $18.44
4" $22.95 $22.95
6" – 10" $101.20 $101.20
Phase V Rate Increases will occur only if directed by the City Council to transition into the City's Emergency Response Phase V of its Water Conservation Plan.

UNMETERED FLAT RATES Proposed Unmetered Flat Rates per Fiscal Year (FY) Potable Water Rate Schedule
Current
Rates
FY 2023/24
No Proposed
Rate Change
FY 2023/24
No Recycled Water Flat Rate
Schedule
No
Proposed
Rates
FY 2023/24
Trailer Parks $39.77
PHASE V RATE INCREASE $47.74
All Others $86.54
PHASE V RATE INCREASE $103.83
City of Porterville
Sewer Utility Rate Study
FINAL | December 2022
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | i
Contents

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 City of Porterville Service Area Overview 1

1.2 Study Background 1

1.2.1 Purpose and Key Drivers 1

1.3 Rate Development Process Overview 2

1.3.1 Step-By-Step Rate Development Approach 2

2.0 Revenue Requirements Analysis 4

2.1 Revenue Requirements Prior to Rate Increases 4

2.1.1 Expenditures 4

2.1.2 Revenues 5

2.2 Cash Flow Test 6

2.3 Debt Service Coverage Test 6

2.3.1 Capital Planning and Reserves 6

2.4 Revenue Requirements with Recommended Rate Increase 8

3.0 Cost of Service 9

3.1 Functional Cost Allocation 9

3.2 Customer Class Allocation 10

4.0 Rate Design Analysis 13

4.1 Alternative 1: Existing Sewer Rate Structure 13

4.1.1 Residential Sewer Rates 13

4.1.2 Non-Residential Sewer Rates 13

4.2 Alternative 2: Cost of Service-Based Sewer Rates 14

4.3 Alternative 3: Residential Consolidation-Based Sewer Rates 15

5.0 Customer Bill Impacts 17

5.1 Single Family Residential 17

5.2 Multi- Family Residential and Trailer Parks 19

5.3 Commercial 21

6.0 Findings and Recommendations 22

6.1 Revenue Requirements 22

6.2 Alternative 2 – Cost of Service Based Sewer Rates 22 SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | ii
Appendices
Appendix A Revenue Requirements, Cost of Service Analysis, & Rate Design Schedules Tables
Table 1 Operating Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands) 4
Table 2 Non-Operating Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands) 5 Table 3 Capital Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands) 5
Table 4 Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 5 Table 5 Cash Flow Test Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 6 Table 6 Debt Coverage Test Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 6 Table 7 Sewer Operating Fund Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 7 Table 8 WWTFR Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 7 Table 9 SRF Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) 7 Table 10 Reserves Target Test ($ thousands) 8
Table 11 Cash Flow with Recommended Revenue ($ thousands) 8 Table 12 Cost Allocation Percentage Bases 9
Table 13 Cost Allocation Results ($ thousands) 10
Table 14 Functional Cost Allocations throughout the Rate-Setting Period ($ thousands) 10 Table 15 Accounts, Flow, BOD, and TSS by Class 11
Table 16 Total Cost Allocation by Class for FY 2024 Test Year 12 Table 17 Alternative 1 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates 13 Table 18 Alternative 1 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates 14 Table 19 Alternative 2 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates 14 Table 20 Alternative 2 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates – per HCF 15 Table 21 Alternative 3 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates 15 Table 22 Alternative 3 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates 16 SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | iii
Figures
Figure 1 Overview of Rate-Setting Process 2
Figure 2 Alternative 1 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill 17 Figure 3 Alternative 2 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill 17 Figure 4 Alternative 3 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill 18 Figure 5 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill Comparison 18 Figure 6 Alternative 1 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill 19 Figure 7 Alternative 2 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill 19 Figure 8 Alternative 3 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill 20 Figure 9 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill Comparison 20 Figure 10 Commercial Restaurant Monthly Sewer Bill (Assumes 15 HCF) 21 SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | iv
Abbreviations
BOD biological oxygen demand
Carollo Carollo Engineers, Inc.

CIP Capital Improvement Program
City City of Porterville
FYE fiscal year ending
HCF hundred cubic feet
lbs/day pounds per day
MG million gallons
mg/L milligrams per liter
mgd million gallons per day
O&M Operations and Maintenance
RCNLD Replacement Cost New Less Depreciation
SRF Sewer Revolving Fund
Study 2022 Sewer Utility Rate Study
TSS Total Suspended Solids
WEF Water Environment Federation
WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility
WWTFR Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Fund
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 City of Porterville Service Area Overview
The City of Porterville (City) provides wastewater services for all residential, commercial, and industrial discharges within the city. East Porterville’s sanitary sewer service is managed by the Porter Vista Public Utilities District but treated at the City’s wastewater treatment facility (WWTF). The City owns and maintains approximately 2,278 manholes, 24 lift stations, 9,980 feet of force mains, and over 48 miles of gravity sewer pipes to receive, treat, and dispose of approximately 4.69 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater. The WWTF has significantly expanded its capacity over time with an original capacity of

1.8 mgd in 1954 to its current capacity, since 1994, of 8.0 mgd. However, a discharge order restricts the monthly average daily discharge to 5.3 mgd. Treated effluent is pumped through a 4.5-mile pipeline to the southwest area of town where it is applied to effluent irrigation areas or percolated into the ground via percolation basins during winter months.

1.2 Study Background

1.2.1 Purpose and Key Drivers
The City retained Carollo Engineers, Inc., (Carollo), an independent rate consultant, to conduct a Sewer Utility Rate Study (Study) for the City’s sewer rates for residential, commercial, industrial, and septic waste haulers. This Study is driven largely by the need for an updated analysis with sewer rates based on currently relevant assumptions, allocations, revenues, expenses, and capital improvements. The City’s last sewer utility rate study was conducted in 2003 with the intent of establishing and implementing rates that would sufficiently recover annual wastewater operations for the first time, as the City was drawing down its operating and capital fund reserves and introduced a new structure that provided improved rate equity among customer classes. The analysis resulted in recommending significant rate increases, phased in over a three-year period, including a 30-year debt financing plan which the City is currently repaying.

Significant upcoming capital costs are also driving the reason for this Study. The sewer infrastructure and WWTF capital improvement programs (CIP) will incur much of its costs earlier in the study period (FY 2024 and FY 2025), while the lift station upgrade and digester improvements are notable exceptions that will remain annual expenses throughout the study period (FY 2031). For purposes of this Study, the City has identified capital projects totaling nearly $123 million over the duration of the study period (FY 2021 to FY 2031), which will be recovered through a combination of proceeds from previous debt issuances, developer fees, and rates/cash reserves. While the City is not planning to finance these projects with additional debt issuances, it does have existing debt obligations that will continue to be paid through FY 2049. Lastly, the City was aware of local septic haulers becoming a larger portion of their flows and strengths due to the City’s significantly lower rate charged per thousand gallons when compared to that of neighboring utilities.

Therefore, the City sought to appropriately increase their septic rates to those more in alignment and commensurate with the actual costs the City incurs to treat their flows and strengths.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 2

1.3 Rate Development Process Overview

1.3.1 Step-By-Step Rate Development Approach
Carollo used an industry standard step-by-step
approach when reviewing the City’s sewer rates.

This approach is consistent with industry standards
established within the Water Environment
Federation’s (WEF) Manual of Practice No. 27
Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems.

This step-by-step approach is summarized and
outlined in Figure 1.

1.3.1.1 Revenue Requirements Overview
The revenue requirements analysis tests the
utility’s fiscal health. It compares the City’s
forecasted revenues to its forecasted operations
and maintenance (O&M) expenses, capital
improvement costs, debt service, and reserve
policies to determine the adequacy of the existing
rates to recover costs. If the City falls short of any
of these benchmarks, then rate revenue likely
needs adjustments.

Cash Flow Test
Carollo compiled the City's FY 2021 expenses
(budgeted) as the base year for O&M expenses.

Carollo also collected information related to current cash and restricted/unrestricted fund balances and internal and external policies, and all other future operating and non-operating revenues and expenditures.

With these cost drivers established, a cash flow sufficiency test is typically used to define the annual revenues necessary in the event net cash flow at the end of each FY is negative.

Debt Coverage Test
Debt coverage is the amount of annual revenue, in excess of annual operating expenses and annual debt service, that the City must generate. This is represented as a percentage of the annual debt service and is typically outlined in the official statement for each debt issuance. The City’s current annual debt coverage ratio minimum is 125 percent of annual debt service.

Reserve Funds Test
The reserve funds test reviews end of fiscal year reserve balances compared with City reserve policies. This analysis reviewed the projected reserve balances at the end of the fiscal year compared with these policy targets.

1.3.1.2 Cost of Service Overview
The goal of the cost of service evaluation is to identify an equitable and fair nexus between the costs incurred by the City and the rates assessed to each customer.

Carollo reviewed historical customer billing data to confirm the number of units connected to the system, cost drivers, and cost allocations. Carollo then identified how fixed costs versus variable costs align to functional categories.

Revenue Requirement Analysis
City budget and funding goals outline the
needed rate revenue.

Cost of Service Analysis
Revenue Requirements are assigned to
functional categories on a linebyline basis.

Functional Costs are allocated to cost
components based on engineering standards.

Cost Categories are furhter allocated to each
customer class based on demand profiles.

Rate Design Analysis
The results of the customer class allocation
form the basis of the rate design.

Figure 1 Overview of Rate-Setting Process
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 3
For the City, costs are primarily related to flow in million gallons (MG) and discharge/strength characteristics such as biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). The cost of service analysis takes the projected revenues from the previous step and allocates them to flow, BOD, TSS, and customer service functions based on the baseline system profile. These functionalized costs are allocated to each customer class in accordance with system flows and discharge/strength characteristics.

1.3.1.3 Rate Design Analysis
The Rate Design Analysis ties together the preceding steps into a final rate charged to each customer class.

The rates calculated in this step incorporate the projected revenue requirements and the cost of service allocations into a fair and equitable cost recovery mechanism.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 4

2.0 Revenue Requirements Analysis
The revenue requirements analysis has two main purposes – it serves as a means of evaluating each cost center’s fiscal health and adequacy of current rate levels; and it sets the basis for near- and long-term rate planning.

There are three tests utilized to define the recommended annual revenues necessary:
• Cash Flow Sufficiency Test – The cash flow test defines the amount of annual revenues that must be generated to meet annual expenditure obligations of the utility. • Debt Service Coverage Test – Debt service coverage refers to the collection of revenues to meet all operating expenses and debt service obligations plus an additional multiple of that debt service. The City has a legally required minimum debt service coverage ratio of 1.25x which was used as the basis for this financial analysis. While a higher debt service coverage ratio can be more prudent and signal creditworthiness, it would likely be infeasible to incorporate an unnecessarily high ratio during other significant rate adjustment requirements. • Reserve Test – End of year reserve balances for each of the City’s unrestricted reserve(s) should meet minimum target balances.

If revenues fail only one of these tests, then that respective shortfall sets the revenue increase. If multiple tests are failed, the greatest shortfall defines the required revenue increase.

Data was provided by City staff based on current projections for operating and non-operating expenditures, CIP, debt service, as well as baseline revenues. The City also provided baseline reserve balances and restricted fund targets.

2.1 Revenue Requirements Prior to Rate Increases

2.1.1 Expenditures
Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the City’s operating and non-operating expenditures forecasted during the rate-setting period (FY 2024 to FY 2028), respectively. Table 3 summarizes the City’s capital expenditures.

Operating expenses are escalated by 3.0 percent annually while capital costs were provided by City staff and represent escalated dollars for their respective years.

Table 1 Operating Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands)
Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Sewer Operating System $1,496 $1,541 $1,587 $1,635 $1,684 Water Conservation Plant 3,305 3,405 3,507 3,612 3,720
Industrial Pre-Treatment 162 166 171 176 182
Laboratory 521 537 553 570 587
Stormwater O&M 281 290 298 307 317
Total Operating Expenses $5,765 $5,938 $6,116 $6,300 $6,489 Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 5
Table 2 Non-Operating Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Interfund Transfers $600 $600 $600 $600 $600
Debt Service 4,592 7,000 6,999 6,997 7,000
Rate Funded Capital (PAYGO) - - 1,460 2,772 1,329
Total Non-Operating
Expenses $5,192 $7,600 $9,059 $10,370 $8,929
Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

Table 3 Capital Expenditure Forecast ($ thousands)
Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Sewer Replacement $85 $- $- $- $-
Island Annexation 3,050 2,580 2,420 – –
Other Sewer Infrastructure 80 174 230 88 91
WWTF 32,187 31,090 1,093 1,596 99
Master Plans 207 214 221 229 237
Stormwater 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739
Total Capital Expenses $37,154 $35,649 $5,603 $3,601 $2,166 Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

2.1.2 Revenues
Table 4 summarizes the City’s forecasted revenues during the rate-setting period assuming no revenue increases to Charges for Service.

Table 4 Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Charges for Services:

Sewer Service Charges $7,167 $7,167 $7,167 $7,167 $7,167 Porter Vista Revenue Offset 200 200 200 200 200
Other Revenues:

Property Tax Assessments 187 188 189 190 191
Interest on Investments 41 42 42 42 43
Rent of Land – Agricultural 123 127 131 134 138
Sewer Dumping Charges 51 51 51 52 52
Lab Service Charges 381 383 384 386 388
Other Service Charges 5 5 5 5 5
Penalties 82 84 87 90 92
Other Revenues 5 6 6 6 6
Revenues Pre-Increase $8,242 $8,252 $8,262 $8,272 $8,283 Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 6

2.2 Cash Flow Test
Table 5 summarizes the City’s forecasted revenues during the rate-setting period, assuming no revenue increases. The City is projected to have a cash flow deficit beginning in FY 2024.

Table 5 Cash Flow Test Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Total Revenues $8,242 $8,252 $8,262 $8,272 $8,283
Total Operating Expenses 5,765 5,938 6,116 6,300 6,489
Debt Service 4,592 7,000 6,999 6,997 7,000
Interfund Transfers 600 600 600 600 600
Rate Funded Capital (PAYGO) – – 1,460 2,772 1,329
Total Policy Expenditures 234 597 360 652 1,237
Cash Flow Pre-Increase $(2,949) $(5,883) $(7,273) $(9,049) $(8,372) Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

2.3 Debt Service Coverage Test
Table 6 summarizes the debt service coverage test forecast for the rate-setting period. Debt service coverage is calculated as the ratio of the City’s net income to its annual debt service. Without rate increases, the City is projected to fall below its required debt service coverage ratio of 125 percent (1.25x) in FY 2024 and beyond.

Table 6 Debt Coverage Test Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Total Revenues $8,242 $8,252 $8,262 $8,272 $8,283
Sewer Expenses 5,765 5,938 6,116 6,300 6,489
Debt Service 4,592 7,000 6,999 6,997 7,000
Debt Coverage (1.25x) 1,148 1,750 1,750 1,749 1,750
Coverage Ratio Pre-Increase 0.54x 0.33x 0.31x 0.28x 0.26x Note:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.

2.3.1 Capital Planning and Reserves
The projected reserve balances for the Sewer Operating Fund, Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Fund (WWTFR), and Sewer Revolving Fund (SRF) are presented in Table 7 through Table 9, respectively.

Beginning reserve fund balances for FY 2024 and current targets were provided by City staff. The City is projected to meet its reserve policy targets in 2028, as shown in Table 10.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 7
Table 7 Sewer Operating Fund Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Beginning Balance $1,188 $867 $1,148 $901 $363
Addition to Meet Min. Balance 234 597 360 652 1,237
Cash Flows (555) (316) (607) (1,190) 782
Ending Balance Prior to
Transfers
867 1,148 901 363 2,381
Transfers From/(To) WWTFR – – – – (102)
Ending Balance $867 $1,148 $901 $363 $2,279
Minimum Target $1,422 $1,464 $1,508 $1,553 $1,600
Notes:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.
(2) City’s minimum reserve balance is 90 days of operating expenses.

Table 8 WWTFR Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Beginning Balance $728 $1,884 $1,629 $728 $728
Transfer from Sewer Operating
Fund
300 300 300 300 300
Less: Use of Funds (300) (1,457) (1,202) (300) (300)
Ending Balance Prior to
Transfers
1,884 1,629 728 728 728
Transfers From/(To) Operating – – – – 102
Ending Balance $1,884 $1,629 $728 $728 $830
Minimum Target $428 $428 $428 $428 $428
Notes:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.
(2) City’s minimum reserve balance is 1.0% of replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD).

Table 9 SRF Revenue Forecast Prior to Rates and Fees Increase ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Beginning Balance $4,254 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800
Transfer from Sewer Operating
Fund
300 300 300 300 300
Less: Use of Funds (2,754) (300) (300) (300) (300)
Ending Balance Prior to
Transfers
1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
Transfers From/(To) WWTFR – – – – 94
Ending Balance $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,894
Minimum Target $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
Notes:
(1) Totals may not tie due to rounding.
(2) City’s minimum reserve balance is 90 days of operating expenses.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 8
Table 10 Reserves Target Test ($ thousands)
Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Ending Operating Fund Balance $867 $1,148 $901 $363 $2,279 Days of O&M Expenditures 55 days 71 days 54 days 22 days 129 days Operating Revenue Balance
Above/(Under) Target $(555) $(316) $(607) $(1,190) $679

2.4 Revenue Requirements with Recommended Rate Increase Based on the projected deficits in the debt service coverage test presented in Table 6, Carollo recommends annual revenue increases of 32.5 percent from FY 2024 to FY 2025 and 8.5 percent annual revenue increases from FY 2026 to FY 2028. 3.0 percent annual revenue increases are recommended throughout the remainder of the study period. The revenue plan shown in Table 11 is projected to generate sufficient revenues to meet all three financial tests and provide adequate financial capacity for unexpected future cashflow events.

Table 11 Cash Flow with Recommended Revenue ($ thousands) Description FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Revenue Increase 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%
Baseline Rate Revenue 7,367 7,367 7,367 7,367 7,367
Revenue from Increase 2,394 5,567 6,666 7,859 9,153
Non-Operating Revenue 875 885 895 905 916
Less: Rate Increase Delay – – – – –
Less: Expenditures (11,191) (14,135) (15,535) (17,322) (16,655) Cash Flow After Increases $(555) $(316) $(607) $(1,190) $782 SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 9

3.0 Cost of Service
The cost-of-service portion of the rate analysis creates an equitable and fair basis for collecting rates from each customer class. This analysis initially allocates costs to functional categories based on how the City’s system is designed and operated. These functional category costs are then allocated to each customer class based on how they use the system, as measured by the units for each functional category. For instance, customer classes with higher overall flow will be assigned a greater share of costs incurred to convey and treat that volume of flow. Classes with higher BOD or TSS concentrations in their wastewater discharge will be allocated a greater share of costs to handle and treat these constituents.

The functional cost allocation takes these projected revenue requirements and allocates them to individual functional costs related to the City’s collection, treatment, and administrative processes. Each of the City’s expenses are allocated based on the respective function it serves. In the City’s case, these functions are flow, BOD, and TSS.

The customer class allocation takes these functional costs and further assigns them to each class based on their typical usage of the system. Classes that generate more flow or have more accounts are assigned a greater share of flow or customer service-related costs, respectively. Finally, rate design calculates a rate for each class based on the total allocated costs and the units for cost recovery.

3.1 Functional Cost Allocation
The City’s last rate study, completed in 2003, developed cost allocation factors to recover previously excluded operational costs. The approach used in that study is maintained here because the City’s cost driver categories are largely unchanged, however since the number of capital costs have increased significantly, the focus for this step was how to best allocate each to flow, BOD, and TSS.

Table 12 outlines the City’s three cost allocation categories. Given a lack of available information to determine otherwise and to keep the calculations straightforward and replicable, individual capital costs are allocated in full, half, or equally divided in thirds across the three functions. The total allocation split for capital costs is the quotient of the summed allocated cost divided by total capital cost. Existing debt service and fixed assets are both allocated in nearly equal thirds while O&M expenses are half allocated to flow with the remaining 50 percent split equally among both BOD and TSS. Similar to the capital cost calculation, the total functional allocation percentages are the quotient of the allocated amounts divided by the total estimated costs.

Table 12 Cost Allocation Percentage Bases
Allocation Items Flow BOD TSS
Operating Expenses 50.0% 25.0% 25.0%
Existing Debt Service 34.0% 33.0% 33.0%
Capital Costs 27.7% 36.2% 36.2%
Fixed Assets 34.0% 33.0% 33.0%
Total 35.0% 32.5% 32.5%
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 10
As shown in Table 12, the City’s total costs are almost evenly split between flow (35.0 percent), followed by BOD and TSS (both at 32.5 percent). The functional allocation uses the full study period (FY 2022 to FY 2031) rather than the five-year rate-setting period so that rates continue recovering these anticipated costs, regardless of the particular year in which they were incurred. Results of the cost allocation are shown in Table 13.

Table 13 Cost Allocation Results ($ thousands)
Expenditure Items Flow BOD TSS
Operating Expenses $31,148 $15,574 $15,574
Existing Debt Service 20,551 19,947 19,947
Capital Costs 32,467 42,398 42,398
Fixed Assets 5,982 5,806 5,806
Total $90,148 $83,725 $83,725
Annual revenue requirements, including their allocations by functional category for the duration of the rate-setting period, are shown in Table 14.

Table 14 Functional Cost Allocations throughout the Rate-Setting Period ($ thousands) Functional Categories Allocation FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 Flow 35.0% $ 3,323 $ 4,404 $ 4,778 $ 5,184 $ 5,625
BOD 32.5% 3,087 4,090 4,437 4,815 5,224
TSS 32.5% 3,087 4,090 4,437 4,815 5,224
Total Revenue
Requirement $9,499 $12,585 $13,655 $14,815 $16,074

3.2 Customer Class Allocation
The annual allocated revenue requirements are allocated to each customer class based on the number of units of service that each customer class has for a particular category. That calculation starts by measuring the units of service for each class. The total number of accounts, annual flow, and annual BOD and TSS loadings are shown in Table 15. This table also shows the percent of the total for each class for each particular constituent.

City staff provided Carollo with customer billing data which included the number of accounts, dwelling units, and flow (mgd) for use in development of the cost-of-service analysis as well as development of revenue under existing rates. The cost-of-service analysis determines each class’s proportional contribution (through each of the three cost allocation categories; Flow, BOD, and TSS) based on billing data supplied by City staff.

Due to limited current class-specific strength data (milligrams per liter [mg/L] for BOD and TSS), Carollo maintained the existing assumed strengths used in the previous 2003 study. Those strengths are then converted into pounds per day (lbs/day) by multiplying each customer class’s flow by their respective strengths (mg/L) times 8.34 pounds per gallon. These resulting pounds, by customer class, are then divided by total contributed pounds to arrive at respective allocation percentages by customer class. The most notable change since the previous study is that flows from each customer class have markedly increased while septic waste haulers have significantly increased their flows and as a result their contaminant contributions.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 11
Table 15 Accounts, Flow, BOD, and TSS by Class
Customer Classes Accounts Dwelling
Units
Flow BOD TSS
mgd % mg/L lbs % mg/L lbs %
Residential
Single Family Residential 11,804 39,779 3.0153 57.3% 250 6,287 56.6% 175 4,401 49.1% Multi-Family Residential 656 7,675 1.0669 20.3% 250 2,224 20.0% 175 1,557 17.4% Trailer Park – Spaces 263 1,178 0.1638 3.1% 250 341 3.1% 175 239 2.7% Commercial
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing
House 23 0.0278 0.5% 100 23 0.2% 150 35 0.4%
Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 13 0.0164 0.3% 200 27 0.2% 200 27 0.3% Stores, Offices, Markets 695 0.6105 11.6% 150 764 6.9% 150 764 8.5% Hospital, Rest Homes 27 0.0202 0.4% 250 42 0.4% 100 17 0.2% Multi-Unit with Cons 4 0.0013 0.0% 250 3 0.0% 150 2 0.0% Mortuaries 2 0.0025 0.0% 800 17 0.2% 800 17 0.2%
Service Stations and
Auto Repairs 63 0.0695 1.3% 180 104 0.9% 280 162 1.8%
Restaurants 98 0.0834 1.6% 800 557 5.0% 600 417 4.7%
Churches 61 0.0746 1.4% 150 93 0.8% 150 93 1.0%
Schools 51 0.0518 1.0% 130 56 0.5% 100 43 0.5%
City of Porterville 23 0.0215 0.4% 150 27 0.2% 150 27 0.3% State Hospital 1 0.0013 0.0% 250 3 0.0% 100 1 0.0%
Industrial 15 0.0215 0.4% 150 27 0.2% 100 18 0.2%
Septic Tanks 7 0.0114 0.2% 0 512 4.6% 12,000 1,139 12.7% Totals 13,806 48,633 5.2597 11,108 8,959
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 12
Each of the functional categories are allocated to each customer class by multiplying the annual revenue requirements for a FY 2024 test year in Table 14 by their respective allocation percentages in Table 15. This step is repeated for each of the three constituents (Flow, BOD, TSS) thereby determining each customer class’s respective FY 2024 Test Year revenue requirement, by constituent, in Table 16.

Table 16 Total Cost Allocation by Class for FY 2024 Test Year Customer Classes Flow BOD TSS Total Rev Req
Residential
Single Family Residential $1,905,248 $1,746,947 $1,516,201 $5,168,396 Multi-Family Residential 674,105 618,096 536,455 1,828,656 Trailer Park – Spaces 103,484 94,886 82,353 280,722
Commercial
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House $17,572 $6,445 $11,986 $36,002 Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 10,383 7,616 9,443 27,443
Stores, Offices, Markets 385,775 212,234 263,144 861,153 Hospital, Rest Homes 12,779 11,718 5,811 30,308
Multi-Unit with Cons 799 732 545 2,076
Mortuaries 1,597 4,687 5,811 12,096
Service Stations and Auto Repairs 43,929 29,001 55,934 128,864 Restaurants 52,715 154,671 143,830 351,216
Churches 47,124 25,925 32,144 105,193
Schools 32,747 15,614 14,892 63,252
City of Porterville 13,578 7,470 9,262 30,310
State Hospital 799 732 363 1,894
Industrial 13,578 7,470 6,175 27,222
Septic Tanks 7,188 142,368 392,264 541,820
Total $3,323,400 $3,086,611 $3,086,611 $9,496,622
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 13

4.0 Rate Design Analysis
The rate design analysis ties together the prior two steps (revenue requirement analysis and cost of service analysis) into fair and equitable rates assessed to each customer. The allocated costs shown in Table 16 outline the costs to be recovered from each customer class. Rate design then calculates an appropriate unit cost for each customer class. The City requested Carollo calculate rates under three rate structures. The first alternative maintains the existing rate structure, which charges multifamily residential and trailer park customers 95 percent of the single family residential rate. The second rate structure recovers class cost of service revenue requirements. The third alternative categorizes all residential customers as one residential customer class.

4.1 Alternative 1: Existing Sewer Rate Structure

4.1.1 Residential Sewer Rates
Residential (Single Family, Multifamily, and Trailer Park) customers are currently charged a flat monthly rate for wastewater services regardless of the amount of flows contributed to the WWTP. Alternative 1 maintains the existing rate structure and recovers the total residential class’s proportionate costs. Table 17 illustrates rates for each of the residential customer classes throughout the rate-setting period.

Table 17 Alternative 1 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates Residential
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Single Family
Residential –
Per Unit
$26.87 $30.20 $39.95 $43.35 $47.00 $51.00 89.8%
Multifamily
Residential –
Per Unit

25.52 28.69 37.96 41.18 44.65 48.45 89.9%
Trailer Park –
Per Space 25.52 28.69 37.96 41.18 44.65 48.45 89.9%

4.1.2 Non-Residential Sewer Rates
Non-Residential (Commercial, Industrial, and Septic Tank Haulers) customers are currently charged a volumetric rate that recovers their total cost of service. Non-Residential sewer rates are calculated by dividing the cost per customer class by the amount of respective flow. Existing and Alternative 1 Non-Residential rates, throughout the rate-setting period, are shown in Table 18.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 14
Table 18 Alternative 1 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates Non-Residential
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Car Wash,
Laundry, Packing
House
$0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8%
Bars, Hotels w/o
Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4%
Stores, Offices,
Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%
Hospital, Rest
Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Multi-Unit with
Cons. 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0%
Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3%
Service Stations
and Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8%
Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4% State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Industrial – per hcf 0.93 2.60 3.44 3.74 4.05 4.40 373.1% Septic Tanks – per
1,000 gallons 22.70 130.50 172.90 187.60 203.55 220.85 872.9%

4.2 Alternative 2: Cost of Service-Based Sewer Rates
Alternative 2 of this Study represents cost of service-based sewer rates. These cost-based sewer rates align with California’s Proposition 218 guidelines. Alternative 2 existing and proposed Residential and Non-Residential rates are shown in Table 19 and Table 20, respectively. Please note that Non-Residential sewer rates under Alternative 2 remain constant with those rates presented under Alternative 1.

Table 19 Alternative 2 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates Residential
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Single Family
Residential $26.87 $36.50 $48.35 $52.50 $56.95 $61.80 130.0% Multifamily
Residential 25.52 19.90 26.35 28.55 31.00 33.65 31.9%
Trailer Park 25.52 19.90 26.35 28.55 31.00 33.65 31.9%
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 15
Table 20 Alternative 2 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates – per HCF Non-Residential
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Car Wash, Laundry,
Packing House $0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8% Bars, Hotels w/o
Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4%
Stores, Offices,
Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%
Hospital, Rest
Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Multi-Unit with Cons. 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0% Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3%
Service Stations and
Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8%
Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4% State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Industrial – per hcf 0.93 2.60 3.44 3.74 4.05 4.40 373.1% Septic Tanks – per
1,000 gallons 22.70 130.50 172.90 187.60 203.55 220.85 872.9%

4.3 Alternative 3: Residential Consolidation-Based Sewer Rates Alternative 3 of this Study represents sewer rates with a uniform residential rate. Alternative 3 existing and proposed Residential and Non-Residential rates are shown in Table 21 and Table 22, respectively. Please note that Non-Residential sewer rates under Alternative 3 remain constant with those sewer rates presented under Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 21 Alternative 3 – Existing and Proposed Residential Sewer Rates Residential
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Single Family
Residential $26.87 $29.55 $39.10 $42.40 $46.00 $49.90 85.7% Multifamily
Residential 25.52 29.55 39.10 42.40 46.00 49.90 95.5%
Trailer Park 25.52 29.55 39.10 42.40 46.00 49.90 95.5%
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 16
Table 22 Alternative 3 – Existing and Proposed Non-Residential Sewer Rates Non-Residential –
per hcf
Customer Classes
FYE 2023
(Existing) FYE 2024 FYE 2025 FYE 2026 FYE 2027 FYE 2028 5-Year
Cumulative
Increase
Car Wash, Laundry,
Packing House $0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8% Bars, Hotels w/o
Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4%
Stores, Offices,
Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%
Hospital, Rest
Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Multi-Unit with
Cons. 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0%
Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3%
Service Stations and
Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8%
Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4% State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%
Industrial – per hcf 0.93 2.60 3.44 3.74 4.05 4.40 373.1% Septic Tanks – per
1,000 gallons 22.70 130.50 172.90 187.60 203.55 220.85 872.9% SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 17

5.0 Customer Bill Impacts
The following graphs depict the monthly bill for each residential customer class under Alternatives 1, 2, and

3. Additionally, the monthly bill for restaurants is highlighted as an example under the commercial classes.

5.1 Single Family Residential
Figure 2 through Figure 4 illustrate the bill impact under each rate structure alternative for Single Family Residential customers. Both alternatives assess this charge on a per unit basis regardless of contributed flows. Figure 5 compares the single-family residential bill under each alternative.

Figure 2 Alternative 1 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill Figure 3 Alternative 2 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 18
Figure 4 Alternative 3 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill Figure 5 Single Family Residential Monthly Bill Comparison $26.87
$29.55
$39.10
$42.40
$46.00
$49.90
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
Exis�ng 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 ALTERNATIVE 3 - SFR MONTHLY SEWER BILL
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 19

5.2 Multi- Family Residential and Trailer Parks
Figures 6 through Figure 8 illustrate bill impacts under each rate structure alternative for multifamily residential and trailer park customers.

Similar to single family residential, this charge is assessed on a per unit or per space basis, respectively, for multifamily residential and trailer park customers. Figure 9 compares the bill impacts under the three alternatives.

Figure 6 Alternative 1 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill Figure 7 Alternative 2 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 20
Figure 8 Alternative 3 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill Figure 9 Multifamily and Trailer Park Monthly Bill Comparison $25.52
$29.55
$39.10
$42.40
$46.00
$49.90
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
Exis�ng 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028 ALTERNATIVE 3 - MFR & TRAILER PARK MONTHLY SEWER BILL
$25.52
$28.69
$37.96
$41.18
$44.65
$48.45
$25.52
$19.90
$26.35 $28.55 $31.00
$33.65
$25.52
$29.55
$39.10
$42.40
$46.00
$49.90
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028

MFR & TRAILER PARK MONTHLY SEWER BILL
Alt. 1, 2, and 3
Alt 1 Monthly Bill Alt 2 Monthly Bill Alt. 3 Monthly Bill SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 21

5.3 Commercial
Strictly for illustration purposes, Carollo reviewed the bill impact based on a hypothetical commercial customer classified under “Restaurants” and assumed a monthly flow of 15 hundred cubic feet (HCF), as shown in Figure 10. Unlike residential customers, commercial class customers are billed volumetrically per HCF, with the sole exception of septic tank haulers who are assessed on a per thousand-gallon basis.

Figure 10 Commercial Restaurant Monthly Sewer Bill (Assumes 15 HCF) $44.55
$129.45
$171.60
$186.15
$201.90
$219.15
$0.00
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
2023 2023/2024 2024/2025 2025/2026 2026/2027 2027/2028

COMMERCIAL RESTAURANT MONTHLY SEWER BILL
SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023 | 22

6.0 Findings and Recommendations
Based on the data, assumptions, and approaches detailed in the previous sections, Carollo recommends the following:

6.1 Revenue Requirements
Revenue under existing rates is insufficient to cover operating and capital costs, debt payments, and debt service coverage throughout the study period (FY 2021 – FY 2031). As such, Carollo recommends the City increases wastewater rate revenue by 32.5 percent annually starting in FY 2024 and continuing through FY 2025, then reduce the rate revenue increase to 8.5 percent annually from FY 2026 through FY 2028, and lastly implement 3.0 percent annual rate revenue increases throughout the remainder of the study period (through FY 2031). These annual rate revenue increases will provide adequate revenue to address annual debt service coverage issues in the later years of the rate-setting period while also providing the City with future financial capacity to address unexpected operational and capital costs.

6.2 Alternative 2 – Cost of Service Based Sewer Rates
Carollo recommends the cost of service-based sewer rates presented under Alternative 2 for all customer classes as shown in Table 23 and Table 24. These rates ensure each customer class pays their fair and proportionate share of costs. These rates are supported by the cost-of-service analysis and further adhere to California State legal requirements, including Proposition 218.

SEWER UTILITY RATE STUDY | CITY OF PORTERVILLE
FINAL | MAY 2023
Appendix A

REVENUE REQUIREMENTS, COST OF SERVICE

ANALYSIS, & RATE DESIGN SCHEDULES
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Assumptions
Escalator Constant Meter Size MEUs Months % of Revenue % of Sales Operations 3.0% 5/8" 1 July 100% 8.3%Labor 3.0% 3/4" 1.5 August 92% 8.3% Energy 3.0% 1" 2 September 83% 8.3%
Chemicals 3.0% 1.5" 4.5 October 75% 8.3%Construction / Capital 3.0% 2" 6.5 November 67% 8.3%Water Cost 3.0% 3" 14 December 58% 8.3% Account Growth 0.5% 4" 24.5 January 50% 8.3%Metered Water Demand 0.5% 6" 53.5 February 42% 8.3% No Increase 0.0% 8" 91.5 March 33% 8.3%Inflation + Growth 3.5% 10" 137.5 April 25% 8.3% Metered Demand + Growth 1.0% 12" 201.5 May 17% 8.3%
Fire Demand 0.0% June 8% 8.3%Interest 1.0%Utilities + Delivered Water Demand 3.5% Capacity Maintenance 2.4% Future Debt Issue Term 20 years Developer Fees 1.0% Future Debt Interest Rate 4.25%
Property Taxes 1% Future Issue Cost 1.5%
One time revenue ‐100%
One time expense ‐100%
Current Debt DSCR 1.25x
Operating Fund Target 90 days
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Revenue Requirement
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Cash Flow Test
Operating Revenues
Charges for Services 7,367,262 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Total Operating Revenues 7,367,262 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Non‐Operating Revenues
Other Revenues $ 846,596 $ 855,844 $ 865,284 $ 874,923 $ 884,765 $ 894,816 $ 905,082 $ 915,569 Total Non‐Operating Revenues 846,596 $ $ 855,844 $ 865,284 $ 874,923 $ 884,765 $ 894,816 $ 905,082 $ 915,569 Total Revenues 8,213,858 $ $ 8,223,105 $ 8,232,546 $ 8,242,185 $ 8,252,027 $ 8,262,078 $ 8,272,344 $ 8,282,831 Operating Expenses
Total Sewer Operating System 1,368,902 $ $ 1,409,969 $ 1,452,268 $ 1,495,836 $ 1,540,711 $ 1,586,933 $ 1,634,541 $ 1,683,577 Total Water Conservation Plant 3,024,857 3,115,603 3,209,071 3,305,343 3,404,503 3,506,638 3,611,837 3,720,193 Total Industrial Pre‐Treatment 148,001 152,378 156,886 161,530 166,313 171,239 176,313 181,540 Total Laboratory 477,075 491,387 506,129 521,313 536,952 553,061 569,652 586,742 Total Stormwater O&M ‐ 265,115 273,068 281,261 289,698 298,389 307,341 316,561 Total Operating Expenses 5,018,835 $ $ 5,434,452 $ 5,597,423 $ 5,765,282 $ 5,938,178 $ 6,116,260 $ 6,299,685 $ 6,488,612 Non‐Operating Expenses
Total Interfund Transfers 600,000 $ $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Debt Service 2,231,098 2,209,113 2,187,309 4,592,148 6,999,501 6,998,695 6,997,275 7,000,322 Rate Funded Capital (PAYGO) $                       ‐ ‐ $                        ‐ $                        ‐ $                      ‐ $ $ 1,460,483 $ 2,772,404 $ 1,329,036 Total Non‐Operating Expenses 2,831,098 $ $ 2,809,113 $ 2,787,309 $ 5,192,148 $ 7,599,501 $ 9,059,178 $ 10,369,679 $ 8,929,358 $ 363,924 $ (20,460) $ (152,186) $ (2,715,246) $ (5,285,653) $ (5,452,878) $ (5,624,616) $ (5,806,104) Policy Expenditures
Additional Expenditures $                        ‐ ‐ $                        ‐ $                        ‐ $                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                      ‐ $                      ‐ $ Additions to Meet Minimum Fund Balances $                       ‐ ‐ $ $ 40,185 $ 233,760 $ 597,278 $ 359,955 $ 652,253 $ 1,236,717 Total Policy Expenditures $                       ‐ ‐ $ $ 40,185 $ 233,760 $ 597,278 $ 359,955 $ 652,253 $ 1,236,717 Additional Expenditures OVERRIDE
Additions to Meet Minimum Fund Balances OVERRIDE
Total Expenses 7,849,933 $ $ 8,243,565 $ 8,424,916 $ 11,191,191 $ 14,134,957 $ 15,535,393 $ 17,321,618 $ 16,654,688 Cash Flow Surplus / (Deficit) 363,924 $ $ (20,460) $ (192,370) $ (2,949,006) $ (5,882,931) $ (7,273,315) $ (9,049,274) $ (8,371,857) City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Revenue Requirement
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Reserves Target Test
Ending Operating Fund Balance 1,363,038 $ $ 1,340,002 $ 1,187,816 $ 866,930 $ 1,148,164 $ 901,094 $ 363,215 $ 2,278,975 Days of O&M Expenditures 100 days 90 days 78 days 55 days 71 days 54 days 22 days 129 days Operating Reserve Balance Above / (Under) Target 125,517 $            ‐ $ $ (192,370) $ (554,646) $ (316,044) $ (607,025) $ (1,190,132) $ 679,043 Debt Coverge Test
Revenues
Sewer Sales 7,367,262 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Total Non‐Operating Revenues 846,596 855,844 865,284 874,923 884,765 894,816 905,082 915,569 Total Revenues 8,213,858 $ $ 8,223,105 $ 8,232,546 $ 8,242,185 $ 8,252,027 $ 8,262,078 $ 8,272,344 $ 8,282,831 Expenses
Sewer Expenses 5,018,835 $ $ 5,434,452 $ 5,597,423 $ 5,765,282 $ 5,938,178 $ 6,116,260 $ 6,299,685 $ 6,488,612 Debt Service 2,231,098 2,209,113 2,187,309 4,592,148 6,999,501 6,998,695 6,997,275 7,000,322 Debt Coverage 1.25x 557,775 552,278 546,827 1,148,037 1,749,875 1,749,674 1,749,319 1,750,081 Total Expenses 7,807,708 $ $ 8,195,843 $ 8,331,559 $ 11,505,468 $ 14,687,555 $ 14,864,629 $ 15,046,279 $ 15,239,015 Current Debt DSCR (Before Rate Adjustment) 1.43x 1.26x 1.20x 0.54x 0.33x 0.31x 0.28x 0.26x Debt Coverage Surplus / (Deficit) 406,150 $ $ 27,262 $ (99,013) $ (3,263,283) $ (6,435,528) $ (6,602,551) $ (6,773,935) $ (6,956,185) Revenue Requirement
Revenue Surplus/(Shortfalls) 363,924 $ $ (20,460) $ (192,370) $ (3,263,283) $ (6,435,528) $ (7,273,315) $ (9,049,274) $ (8,371,857) Surplus Cash Flow Driven Cash Flow Driven Coverage Driven Coverage Driven Cash Flow Driven Cash Flow Driven Cash Flow Driven Revenue Increase Month July July July July July July July Calculated Rate Increase 0.3% 2.7% 44.3% 87.4% 98.8% 122.9% 113.7%Rate Increase Override 0.0% 0.0% 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5%Utilized Rate Increase 0.0% 0.0% 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% Cumulative Rate Increase 0.0% 0.0% 32.5% 75.6% 90.5% 106.7% 124.2% City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Revenue Requirement
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Resulting Cash Flows
Rate Revenues before Rate Increase 7,367,262 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Rate Revenues from Rate Increase ‐                            ‐ ‐ 2,394,360 5,566,887 6,666,290 7,859,141 9,153,386 NON‐Operating Revenues 846,596 855,844 865,284 874,923 884,765 894,816 905,082 915,569 Less: Rate Increase Delay ‐                            ‐ ‐                            ‐                         ‐                         ‐                         ‐                         ‐ Less: Expenditures (7,849,933) (8,243,565) (8,424,916) (11,191,191) (14,134,957) (15,535,393) (17,321,618) (16,654,688) Resulting Cash Flow 363,924 $ $ (20,460) $ (192,370) $ (554,646) $ (316,044) $ (607,025) $ (1,190,132) $ 781,528 Rate Revenue Requirement 7,367,262 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 9,761,622 $ 12,934,148 $ 14,033,551 $ 15,226,403 $ 16,520,647 DSCR (after increase) 1.81x 1.65x 1.60x 1.25x 1.25x 1.39x 1.53x 1.69x City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Revenue & Expenses Summary
Revenues
Charges for Services 6,310,583 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Other Revenues 894,691 846,596 855,844 865,284 874,923 884,765 894,816 905,082 915,569 Total Revenues 7,205,274 $ $ 8,213,858 $ 8,223,105 $ 8,232,546 $ 8,242,185 $ 8,252,027 $ 8,262,078 $ 8,272,344 $ 8,282,831

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Expenses
Total Sewer Operating System 1,182,784 $ $ 1,368,902 $ 1,409,969 $ 1,452,268 $ 1,495,836 $ 1,540,711 $ 1,586,933 $ 1,634,541 $ 1,683,577 Total Water Conservation Plant 2,690,166 3,024,857 3,115,603 3,209,071 3,305,343 3,404,503 3,506,638 3,611,837 3,720,193 Total Industrial Pre‐Treatment 111,897 148,001 152,378 156,886 161,530 166,313 171,239 176,313 181,540 Total Laboratory 390,367 477,075 491,387 506,129 521,313 536,952 553,061 569,652 586,742 Total Interfund Transfers (726,678) 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Total Stormwater O&M                       ‐ ‐ 265,115 273,068 281,261 289,698 298,389 307,341 316,561 Total Expenses 3,648,536 $ $ 5,618,835 $ 6,034,452 $ 6,197,423 $ 6,365,282 $ 6,538,178 $ 6,716,260 $ 6,899,685 $ 7,088,612

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Revenues
Charges for Services * assuming no rate increase and the same number of units and usage 4871 Sewer Service Charges [ calculated ] $ 6,310,583 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 $ 7,167,210 Porter Vista Revenue Offset $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 $ 200,052 Charges for Services 6,310,583 $ $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 $ 7,367,262 Other Revenues
4005 Property Tax Assessments Account Growth 182,459 $ $ 184,000 $ 184,920 $ 185,845 $ 186,774 $ 187,708 $ 188,646 $ 189,589 $ 190,537 4601 Interest on Investments Interest 65,049 40,000 40,400 40,804 41,212 41,624 42,040 42,461 42,885 4606 Rent of Land ‐ Agricultural Operations 112,596 112,596 115,974 119,453 123,037 126,728 130,530 134,446 138,479 4872 Sewer Dumping Charges Metered Water Demand 50,430 50,000 50,250 50,501 50,754 51,008 51,263 51,519 51,776 4875 Lab Service Charges Metered Water Demand 397,935 375,000 376,875 378,759 380,653 382,556 384,469 386,392 388,324 4899 Other Service Charges Metered Water Demand 4,678 5,000 5,025 5,050 5,075 5,101 5,126 5,152 5,178 4998 Penalties Operations 72,817 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554 92,241 4999 Other Revenues Operations 8,727 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 Other Revenues $ 894,691 $ 846,596 $ 855,844 $ 865,284 $ 874,923 $ 884,765 $ 894,816 $ 905,082 $ 915,569 Total Revenues 7,205,274 $ $ 8,213,858 $ 8,223,105 $ 8,232,546 $ 8,242,185 $ 8,252,027 $ 8,262,078 $ 8,272,344 $ 8,282,831 0% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Expenses
Sewer Operating System
Personnel Services
5030‐060‐010 Salaries, Regular Labor 176,270 $ $ 275,560 $ 283,827 $ 292,342 $ 301,112 $ 310,145 $ 319,450 $ 329,033 $ 338,904 5030‐060‐020 Salaries, Part‐time Labor ‐ 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 7,379 5030‐060‐030 Salaries, Overtime Labor 8,932 9,000 9,270 9,548 9,835 10,130 10,433 10,746 11,069 5030‐060‐090 Benefits Labor 98,782 140,990 145,220 149,576 154,064 158,685 163,446 168,349 173,400 Total Personnel Services 283,984 $ $ 431,550 $ 444,497 $ 457,831 $ 471,566 $ 485,713 $ 500,285 $ 515,293 $ 530,752 Maintenance
5030‐060‐110 Vehicle Mantenance Operations 148,149 $ $ 150,000 $ 154,500 $ 159,135 $ 163,909 $ 168,826 $ 173,891 $ 179,108 $ 184,481 5030‐060‐120 Building/Grounds Maintenance Operations 19,061 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 4,919 5030‐060‐140 Computer Equipment Maintenance Operations 6,661 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 5030‐060‐190 Other Equipment Maintenance Operations 25,924 31,000 31,930 32,888 33,875 34,891 35,937 37,016 38,126 Total Maintenance 199,795 $ $ 190,000 $ 195,700 $ 201,571 $ 207,618 $ 213,847 $ 220,262 $ 226,870 $ 233,676 Services
5030‐060‐220 Printing/Copying Operations 8,279 $ $ 8,300 $ 8,549 $ 8,805 $ 9,070 $ 9,342 $ 9,622 $ 9,911 $ 10,208 5030‐060‐230 Professional/Temp Service Operations 4,862 15,000 15,450 15,914 16,391 16,883 17,389 17,911 18,448 5030‐060‐260 Rent of Property & Equipment Operations 707 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 2,319 2,388 2,460 5030‐060‐280 Administrative Expense Operations 128,610 131,500 135,445 139,508 143,694 148,004 152,445 157,018 161,728 Total Services 142,458 $ $ 156,800 $ 161,504 $ 166,349 $ 171,340 $ 176,480 $ 181,774 $ 187,227 $ 192,844 Supplies & Materials
5030‐060‐320 Office/Computer Supplies Operations 2,215 $ $ 3,000 $ 3,090 $ 3,183 $ 3,278 $ 3,377 $ 3,478 $ 3,582 $ 3,690 5030‐060‐340 Maintenance and Repair Material Operations 34,537 45,000 46,350 47,741 49,173 50,648 52,167 53,732 55,344 5030‐060‐350 Tools/Equipment Operations 2,592 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 3,075 Total Supplies & Materials 39,344 $ $ 50,500 $ 52,015 $ 53,575 $ 55,183 $ 56,838 $ 58,543 $ 60,300 $ 62,109 Other Operating Costs
5030‐060‐410 Meeting Expense Operations 383 $                   ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ 5030‐060‐420 Utilities Operations 68,888 69,875 71,971 74,130 76,354 78,645 81,004 83,434 85,937 5030‐060‐430 Uniform Allowance Operations 1,238 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 3,690 5030‐060‐440 Training Expense Operations 341 3,000 3,090 3,183 3,278 3,377 3,478 3,582 3,690 5030‐060‐450 Publication and Dues Operations 410 1,000 1,030 1,061 1,093 1,126 1,159 1,194 1,230 5030‐060‐460 Postage Operations 31,220 32,050 33,012 34,002 35,022 36,073 37,155 38,269 39,417 Total Other Operating Costs 102,480 $ $ 108,925 $ 112,193 $ 115,559 $ 119,025 $ 122,596 $ 126,274 $ 130,062 $ 133,964 Risk Management Expenses
5030‐060‐520 Insurance, Liability Operations 26,400 $ $ 26,400 $ 27,192 $ 28,008 $ 28,848 $ 29,713 $ 30,605 $ 31,523 $ 32,469 Total Risk Management Expenses 26,400 $ $ 26,400 $ 27,192 $ 28,008 $ 28,848 $ 29,713 $ 30,605 $ 31,523 $ 32,469 Other Expenses
5030‐060‐660 Other Expense Operations 2,160 12,000 12,360 12,731 13,113 13,506 13,911 14,329 14,758 5030‐060‐670 Franchise Fee Operations 332,727 332,727 342,709 352,990 363,580 374,487 385,722 397,293 409,212 Total Other Expenses 334,887 $ $ 344,727 $ 355,069 $ 365,721 $ 376,693 $ 387,993 $ 399,633 $ 411,622 $ 423,971 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Capital Outlay
5030‐060‐730 Other Machinery/Equipment Construction / Capital 53,436 $ $ 60,000 $ 61,800 $ 63,654 $ 65,564 $ 67,531 $ 69,556 $ 71,643 $ 73,792 Total Capital Outlay 53,436 $ $ 60,000 $ 61,800 $ 63,654 $ 65,564 $ 67,531 $ 69,556 $ 71,643 $ 73,792 Total Sewer Operating System 1,182,784 $ $ 1,368,902 $ 1,409,969 $ 1,452,268 $ 1,495,836 $ 1,540,711 $ 1,586,933 $ 1,634,541 $ 1,683,577 6% 16% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Water Conservation Plant
Personnel Services
5030‐065‐010 Salaries, Regular Labor 451,815 $ $ 537,103 $ 553,216 $ 569,813 $ 586,907 $ 604,514 $ 622,650 $ 641,329 $ 660,569 5030‐065‐030 Salaries, Overtime Labor 20,637 20,000 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185 23,881 24,5975030‐065‐090 Benefits Labor 264,961 313,914 323,331 333,031 343,022 353,313 363,912 374,830 386,075 Total Personnel Services 737,413 $ $ 871,017 $ 897,148 $ 924,062 $ 951,784 $ 980,337 $ 1,009,747 $ 1,040,040 $ 1,071,241 Maintenance
5030‐065‐110 Vehicle Mantenance Operations 102,834 $ $ 112,000 $ 115,360 $ 118,821 $ 122,385 $ 126,057 $ 129,839 $ 133,734 $ 137,746 5030‐065‐120 Building/Grounds Maintenance Operations 13,801 25,000 25,750 26,523 27,318 28,138 28,982 29,851 30,747 5030‐065‐140 Computer Equipment Maintenance Operations 12,468 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 5030‐065‐190 Other Equipment Maintenance Operations 53,444 19,000 19,570 20,157 20,762 21,385 22,026 22,687 23,368 Total Maintenance 182,547 $ $ 161,000 $ 165,830 $ 170,805 $ 175,929 $ 181,207 $ 186,643 $ 192,242 $ 198,010 Services
5030‐065‐220 Printing/Copying Operations 661 $ $ 700 $ 721 $ 743 $ 765 $ 788 $ 811 $ 836 $ 861 5030‐065‐230 Professional/Temp Service Operations 383,749 500,000 515,000 530,450 546,364 562,754 579,637 597,026 614,937 5030‐065‐260 Rent of Property & Equipment Operations 29,039 35,000 36,050 37,132 38,245 39,393 40,575 41,792 43,046 5030‐065‐280 Administrative Expense Operations 524,654 525,000 540,750 556,973 573,682 590,892 608,619 626,877 645,684 Total Services 938,103 $ $ 1,060,700 $ 1,092,521 $ 1,125,297 $ 1,159,056 $ 1,193,827 $ 1,229,642 $ 1,266,531 $ 1,304,527 Supplies & Materials
5030‐065‐320 Office/Computer Supplies Operations 2,635 $ $ 5,000 $ 5,150 $ 5,305 $ 5,464 $ 5,628 $ 5,796 $ 5,970 $ 6,149 5030‐065‐330 Janitorial Supplies Operations                       ‐ ‐                       ‐ ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ 5030‐065‐340 Maintenance and Repair Material Operations 112,745 152,000 156,560 161,257 166,095 171,077 176,210 181,496 186,941 5030‐065‐350 Tools/Equipment Operations 5,202 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 Total Supplies & Materials 120,582 $ $ 162,000 $ 166,860 $ 171,866 $ 177,022 $ 182,332 $ 187,802 $ 193,436 $ 199,240 Other Operating Costs
5030‐065‐410 Meeting Expense Operations 297 $                   ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ 5030‐065‐420 Utilities Operations 449,359 451,640 465,189 479,145 493,519 508,325 523,575 539,282 555,460 5030‐065‐430 Uniform Allowance Operations 4,888 6,000 6,180 6,365 6,556 6,753 6,956 7,164 7,379 5030‐065‐440 Training Expense Operations 1,000 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 5030‐065‐450 Publication and Dues Operations 2,709 5,000 5,150 5,305 5,464 5,628 5,796 5,970 6,149 5030‐065‐460 Postage Operations 12 500 515 530 546 563 580 597 615 5030‐065‐490 Special Consumables Operations 161,011 187,000 192,610 198,388 204,340 210,470 216,784 223,288 229,986 Total Other Operating Costs 619,276 $ $ 655,140 $ 674,794 $ 695,038 $ 715,889 $ 737,366 $ 759,487 $ 782,271 $ 805,740 Risk Management Expenses
5030‐065‐520 Insurance, Liability Operations $                    ‐ ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ Total Risk Management Expenses $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Other Expenses
5030‐065‐660 Other Expense Operations 93 20,000 20,600 21,218 21,855 22,510 23,185 23,881 24,597 Total Other Expenses 93 $ $ 20,000 $ 20,600 $ 21,218 $ 21,855 $ 22,510 $ 23,185 $ 23,881 $ 24,597 Capital Outlay
5030‐065‐730 Other Machinery/Equipment Construction / Capital 92,152 $ $ 95,000 $ 97,850 $ 100,786 $ 103,809 $ 106,923 $ 110,131 $ 113,435 $ 116,838 Total Capital Outlay 92,152 $ $ 95,000 $ 97,850 $ 100,786 $ 103,809 $ 106,923 $ 110,131 $ 113,435 $ 116,838 Total Water Conservation Plant 2,690,166 $ $ 3,024,857 $ 3,115,603 $ 3,209,071 $ 3,305,343 $ 3,404,503 $ 3,506,638 $ 3,611,837 $ 3,720,193 4% 12% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Industrial Pre‐Treatment
Personnel Services
5030‐066‐010 Salaries, Regular Labor 33,567 $ $ 46,538 $ 47,934 $ 49,372 $ 50,853 $ 52,379 $ 53,950 $ 55,569 $ 57,236 5030‐066‐090 Benefits Labor 15,884 23,263 23,961 24,680 25,420 26,183 26,968 27,777 28,611 Total Personnel Services 49,451 $ $ 69,801 $ 71,895 $ 74,052 $ 76,273 $ 78,562 $ 80,918 $ 83,346 $ 85,846 Maintenance
5030‐066‐110 Vehicle Mantenance Operations 8,991 $ $ 9,000 $ 9,270 $ 9,548 $ 9,835 $ 10,130 $ 10,433 $ 10,746 $ 11,069 5030‐066‐120 Building/Grounds Maintenance Operations 35,880 40,000 41,200 42,436 43,709 45,020 46,371 47,762 49,195 5030‐066‐190 Other Equipment Maintenance Operations ‐ 2,000 2,060 2,122 2,185 2,251 2,319 2,388 2,460 Total Maintenance 44,871 $ $ 51,000 $ 52,530 $ 54,106 $ 55,729 $ 57,401 $ 59,123 $ 60,897 $ 62,724 Services
5030‐066‐230 Professional/Temp Service Operations 13,136 $ $ 20,000 $ 20,600 $ 21,218 $ 21,855 $ 22,510 $ 23,185 $ 23,881 $ 24,597 Total Services 13,136 $ $ 20,000 $ 20,600 $ 21,218 $ 21,855 $ 22,510 $ 23,185 $ 23,881 $ 24,597 Supplies & Materials
5030‐066‐320 Office/Computer Supplies Operations $                    ‐ ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ 5030‐066‐340 Maintenance and Repair Material Operations 658 500 515 530 546 563 580 597 615 5030‐066‐350 Tools/Equipment Operations ‐ 300 309 318 328 338 348 358 369 Total Supplies & Materials 658 $ $ 800 $ 824 $ 849 $ 874 $ 900 $ 927 $ 955 $ 984 Other Operating Costs
5030‐066‐420 Utilities Operations 1,592 $ $ 1,600 $ 1,648 $ 1,697 $ 1,748 $ 1,801 $ 1,855 $ 1,910 $ 1,968 5030‐066‐430 Uniform Allowance Operations ‐ 50 52 53 55 56 58 60 61 5030‐066‐440 Training Expense Operations ‐ 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845 5030‐066‐450 Publication and Dues Operations 89 150 155 159 164 169 174 179 184 Total Other Operating Costs 1,681 $ $ 3,300 $ 3,399 $ 3,501 $ 3,606 $ 3,714 $ 3,826 $ 3,940 $ 4,059 Risk Management Expenses
5030‐066‐520 Insurance, Liability Operations 2,100 $ $ 2,100 $ 2,163 $ 2,228 $ 2,295 $ 2,364 $ 2,434 $ 2,508 $ 2,583 Total Risk Management Expenses 2,100 $ $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 $ 2,100 Other Expenses
5030‐066‐660 Other Expense Operations $ ‐ $ 1,000 $ 1,030 $ 1,061 $ 1,093 $ 1,126 $ 1,159 $ 1,194 $ 1,230 Total Other Expenses $ ‐ $ 1,000 $ 1,030 $ 1,061 $ 1,093 $ 1,126 $ 1,159 $ 1,194 $ 1,230 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Capital Outlay
5030‐066‐730 Other Machinery/Equipment Operations $                    ‐ ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ Total Capital Outlay $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ Total Industrial Pre‐Treatment 111,897 $ $ 148,001 $ 152,378 $ 156,886 $ 161,530 $ 166,313 $ 171,239 $ 176,313 $ 181,540 70% 32% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Laboratory
Personnel Services
5030‐068‐010 Salaries, Regular Labor 166,865 $ $ 205,852 $ 212,028 $ 218,388 $ 224,940 $ 231,688 $ 238,639 $ 245,798 $ 253,172 5030‐068‐030 Salaries, Overtime Labor 1,336 1,400 1,442 1,485 1,530 1,576 1,623 1,672 1,722 5030‐068‐090 Benefits Labor 86,201 108,603 111,861 115,217 118,673 122,234 125,901 129,678 133,568 Total Personnel Services 254,402 $ $ 315,855 $ 325,331 $ 335,091 $ 345,143 $ 355,498 $ 366,163 $ 377,147 $ 388,462 Maintenance
5030‐068‐110 Vehicle Mantenance Operations $                    ‐ ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ 5030‐068‐120 Building/Grounds Maintenance Operations 5,580 6,350 6,541 6,737 6,939 7,147 7,361 7,582 7,810 5030‐068‐190 Other Equipment Maintenance Operations 25,320 35,320 36,380 37,471 38,595 39,753 40,946 42,174 43,439 Total Maintenance 30,900 $ $ 41,670 $ 42,920 $ 44,208 $ 45,534 $ 46,900 $ 48,307 $ 49,756 $ 51,249 Services
5030‐068‐220 Printing/Copying Operations 256 $ $ 300 $ 309 $ 318 $ 328 $ 338 $ 348 $ 358 $ 369 5030‐068‐230 Professional/Temp Service Operations 17,111 17,000 17,510 18,035 18,576 19,134 19,708 20,299 20,908 5030‐068‐260 Rent of Property & Equipment Operations 3,231 4,000 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 4,919 Total Services 20,598 $ $ 21,300 $ 21,939 $ 22,597 $ 23,275 $ 23,973 $ 24,693 $ 25,433 $ 26,196 Supplies & Materials
5030‐068‐320 Office/Computer Supplies Operations 2,031 $ $ 2,100 $ 2,163 $ 2,228 $ 2,295 $ 2,364 $ 2,434 $ 2,508 $ 2,583 5030‐068‐330 Janitorial Supplies Operations                       ‐ ‐                       ‐ ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ 5030‐068‐340 Maintenance and Repair Material Operations 138 200 206 212 219 225 232 239 246 5030‐068‐350 Tools/Equipment Operations ‐ 1,500 1,545 1,591 1,639 1,688 1,739 1,791 1,845 Total Supplies & Materials 2,169 $ $ 3,800 $ 3,914 $ 4,031 $ 4,152 $ 4,277 $ 4,405 $ 4,537 $ 4,674 Other Operating Costs
5030‐068‐420 Utilities Operations 18,017 $ $ 19,000 $ 19,570 $ 20,157 $ 20,762 $ 21,385 $ 22,026 $ 22,687 $ 23,368 5030‐068‐430 Uniform Allowance Operations 416 600 618 637 656 675 696 716 738 5030‐068‐440 Training Expense Operations ‐ 2,500 2,575 2,652 2,732 2,814 2,898 2,985 3,075 5030‐068‐450 Publication and Dues Operations 1,304 1,400 1,442 1,485 1,530 1,576 1,623 1,672 1,722 5030‐068‐460 Postage Operations 137 250 258 265 273 281 290 299 307 5030‐068‐490 Special Consumables Operations 55,436 63,000 64,890 66,837 68,842 70,907 73,034 75,225 77,482 Total Other Operating Costs 75,310 $ $ 86,750 $ 89,353 $ 92,033 $ 94,794 $ 97,638 $ 100,567 $ 103,584 $ 106,692 Risk Management Expenses
5030‐068‐520 Insurance, Liability Operations 4,200 $ $ 4,200 $ 4,326 $ 4,456 $ 4,589 $ 4,727 $ 4,869 $ 5,015 $ 5,165 Total Risk Management Expenses 4,200 $ $ 4,200 $ 4,326 $ 4,456 $ 4,589 $ 4,727 $ 4,869 $ 5,015 $ 5,165 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Operations & Maintenance Expenses
Budget Forecasted ‐‐>
Growth Factor FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Other Expenses
5030‐068‐660 Other Expense Operations 546 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,030 $ 1,061 $ 1,093 $ 1,126 $ 1,159 $ 1,194 $ 1,230 Total Other Expenses 546 $ $ 1,000 $ 1,030 $ 1,061 $ 1,093 $ 1,126 $ 1,159 $ 1,194 $ 1,230 Capital Outlay
5030‐068‐730 Other Machinery/Equipment Operations 2,242 $ $ 2,500 $ 2,575 $ 2,652 $ 2,732 $ 2,814 $ 2,898 $ 2,985 $ 3,075 Total Capital Outlay 2,242 $ $ 2,500 $ 2,575 $ 2,652 $ 2,732 $ 2,814 $ 2,898 $ 2,985 $ 3,075 Total Laboratory 390,367 $ $ 477,075 $ 491,387 $ 506,129 $ 521,313 $ 536,952 $ 553,061 $ 569,652 $ 586,742 ‐1% 22% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Interfund Transfers
4210 Transfers from Other Funds No Increase 3,892 $                ‐ $ $                    ‐ ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $                    ‐ $ 4210 Transfers to Other Funds No Increase (730,570) 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Total Interfund Transfers (726,678) $ $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Stormwater O&M
TBD Stormwater Operation & Maintenance Operations 265,115 $ $ 273,068 $ 281,261 $ 289,698 $ 298,389 $ 307,341 $ 316,561 Total Stormwater O&M $                    ‐ ‐ $ $ 265,115 $ 273,068 $ 281,261 $ 289,698 $ 298,389 $ 307,341 $ 316,561 Total Expenses 3,648,536 $ $ 5,618,835 $ 6,034,452 $ 6,197,423 $ 6,365,282 $ 6,538,178 $ 6,716,260 $ 6,899,685 $ 7,088,612 70% 54% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Reserves & CIP Funding Plan
Projected Forecasted ‐‐>
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Capital Funding Summary
Capital Funding Needs
SRF $ 207,000 $ 121,000 $ 195,438 $ 164,954 $ 82,553 $ 85,236 $ 88,006 $ 90,866 Sewer Bond Refi ‐ 2,955,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 2,580,000              ‐ 2,420,000                          ‐ Developer Fees 321,198 554,223 200,000 207,000 214,000 221,000 229,000 237,000 Unfunded ‐ 4,388,000 5,746,000 3,045,000 2,682,350 2,783,642 3,188,263 1,738,911 WWTFR 5,085,261 1,261,928 84,590 30,687,340 30,090,178 93,109 96,135 99,259 Capital Funding Needs 5,613,459 $ $ 9,280,151 $ 9,276,028 $ 37,154,294 $ 35,649,081 $ 5,602,987 $ 3,601,404 $ 2,166,036 Capital Funding Sources
Grants $                       ‐ ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Sewer Bond Refi ‐ 2,955,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 2,580,000              ‐ 2,420,000                          ‐ Developer Fees 321,198 554,223 200,000 207,000 214,000 221,000 229,000 237,000 Impact Fees                          ‐ ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐ Initial use of Capital Reserve (WWTFR) 5,085,261
Initial use of Sewer Revolving Fund 207,000
Additional use of Capital Reserve (WWTFR) ‐ 5,770,928 3,102,590 300,000 1,456,585 1,201,504 300,000 300,000 Additional use of Sewer Revolving Fund                          ‐ ‐ 2,923,438 2,753,879 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000Use of Bond Proceeds                          ‐ ‐                          ‐ 30,843,415            ‐ 31,098,496                          ‐                          ‐ Rate Funded (PAYGO)                          ‐ ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐ 1,460,483 2,772,404 1,329,036 Total Capital Funding Sources 5,613,459 $ $ 9,280,151 $ 9,276,028 $ 37,154,294 $ 35,649,081 $ 5,602,987 $ 3,601,404 $ 2,166,036

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Reserves Summary
Sewer Operating Fund 2,382,042 $ $ 1,363,038 $ 1,340,002 $ 1,187,816 $ 866,930 $ 1,148,164 $ 901,094 $ 363,215 $ 2,278,975 Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Fund (WWTFR) 7,436,799 8,998,727 3,530,376 727,786 1,884,371 1,629,290 727,786 727,786 830,271Sewer Revolving Fund (SRF) 6,153,740 6,574,740 6,877,317 4,253,879 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,893,819 Ending Balance ‐ All Funds 15,972,581 $ $ 16,936,505 $ 11,747,695 $ 6,169,481 $ 4,551,301 $ 4,577,454 $ 3,428,880 $ 2,891,001 $ 5,003,065 Interest Earnings $ ‐ $ 164,545 $ 143,421 $ 89,586 $ 53,604 $ 45,644 $ 40,032 $ 31,599 $ 39,470 Fund Assumptions
Interest Earnings 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%Minimum Target ‐ Sewer Operating Fund 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days Maximum Target ‐ Sewer Operating Fund 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days Minimum Target ‐ WWTF Capital Fund 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD 1.0% RCNLD Maximum Target ‐ WWTF Capital Fund 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD 2.0% RCNLD Minimum Target ‐ Sewer Revolving Fund (SRF) 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days 90 days Maximum Target ‐ Sewer Revolving Fund (SRF) 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days 180 days City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Reserves & CIP Funding Plan
Projected Forecasted ‐‐>
FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Sewer Operating Fund
Beginning Balance 2,362,470 $ $ 2,382,042 $ 1,363,038 $ 1,340,002 $ 1,187,816 $ 866,930 $ 1,148,164 $ 901,094 $ 363,215 Addition to meet min. balance                          ‐ ‐                          ‐ 40,185 233,760 597,278 359,955 652,253 1,236,717 Cash Flows 1,610,244 363,924 (20,460) (192,370) (554,646) (316,044) (607,025) (1,190,132) 781,528 Ending Balance Prior to Year End Transfers 3,972,714 $ $ 2,745,966 $ 1,342,579 $ 1,187,816 $ 866,930 $ 1,148,164 $ 901,094 $ 363,215 $ 2,381,460 Year End Transfers
Transfers From/(To) WWTFR (1,261,928)                     ‐ (2,577)                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐                          ‐ (102,485) Transfers From/(To) SRF (121,000)
Ending Balance $ 2,382,042 $ 1,363,038 $ 1,340,002 $ 1,187,816 $ 866,930 $ 1,148,164 $ 901,094 $ 363,215 $ 2,278,975 Days of O&M Expenditures 199 days 100 days 90 days 78 days 55 days 71 days 54 days 22 days 129 days Minimum Target 1,078,820 $ $ 1,237,521 $ 1,340,002 $ 1,380,186 $ 1,421,576 $ 1,464,208 $ 1,508,119 $ 1,553,347 $ 1,599,932 Maximum Target 2,157,640 $ $ 2,475,042 $ 2,680,004 $ 2,760,373 $ 2,843,153 $ 2,928,416 $ 3,016,238 $ 3,106,694 $ 3,199,864 Interest Earnings 18,725 $ $ 13,515 $ 12,639 $ 10,274 $ 10,075 $ 10,246 $ 6,322 $ 13,211 Wastewater Treatment Facility Capital Fund (WWTFR)
Beginning Balance 6,048,218 $ $ 7,436,799 $ 8,998,727 $ 3,530,376 $ 727,786 $ 1,884,371 $ 1,629,290 $ 727,786 $ 727,786 Unused Bond Proceeds                          ‐ ‐                          ‐ 1,156,585                 ‐ 901,504                          ‐                          ‐ Transfer From Sewer Operating Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Less: Use of Funds                          ‐ ‐ (5,770,928) (3,102,590) (300,000) (1,456,585) (1,201,504) (300,000) (300,000) Ending Balance Prior to Year End Transfers 6,048,218 $ $ 7,736,799 $ 3,527,799 $ 727,786 $ 1,884,371 $ 1,629,290 $ 727,786 $ 727,786 $ 727,786 Year End Transfers
Transfer (To)/From Operating (Year End) $ 1,261,928 $                   ‐ 2,577 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ $ 102,485 Ending Balance $ 7,436,799 $ 8,998,727 $ 3,530,376 $ 727,786 $ 1,884,371 $ 1,629,290 $ 727,786 $ 727,786 $ 830,271 Minimum Target 427,786 $ $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 $ 427,786 Maximum Target 855,572 $ $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 $ 855,572 Interest Earnings 82,178 $ $ 62,646 $ 21,291 $ 13,061 $ 17,568 $ 11,785 $ 7,278 $ 7,790 Sewer Revolving Fund (SRF)
Beginning Balance 5,749,619 $ $ 6,153,740 $ 6,574,740 $ 6,877,317 $ 4,253,879 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Transfer From Sewer Operating Fund 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 Less: Use of Funds                          ‐ ‐                          ‐ (2,923,438) (2,753,879) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) Ending Balance Prior to Year End Transfers 5,749,619 $ $ 6,453,740 $ 6,874,740 $ 4,253,879 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 Year End Transfers
Transfers From/(To) Operating Reserve $ 121,000 $                   ‐ 2,577 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ $ 93,819 Ending Balance $ 6,153,740 $ 6,574,740 $ 6,877,317 $ 4,253,879 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,800,000 $ 1,893,819 Minimum Target 1,500,000 $ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000 Maximum Target
Interest Earnings 63,642 $ $ 67,260 $ 55,656 $ 30,269 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ 18,469 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Debt Service
FYE 2020 FYE 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Debt Service Summary
Current Debt
Principal Payment 724,000 $ $ 919,000 $ 1,028,000 $ 1,138,000 $ 1,176,000 $ 1,221,000 $ 1,265,000 $ 1,310,000 $ 1,360,000 Interest Payment 1,222,494 1,312,098 1,181,113 1,049,309 1,009,114 964,432 919,626 873,206 826,253 Total Current Debt Service 1,946,494 $ $ 2,231,098 $ 2,209,113 $ 2,187,309 $ 2,185,114 $ 2,185,432 $ 2,184,626 $ 2,183,206 $ 2,186,253 Future Debt
Principal Payment $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $ $ 1,047,035 $ 2,138,568 $ 2,229,458 $ 2,324,210 $ 2,422,988 Interest Payment                    ‐ ‐                    ‐                    ‐ 1,360,000 2,675,501 2,584,612 2,489,860 2,391,081 Total Future Debt Service $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $ $ 2,407,035 $ 4,814,069 $ 4,814,069 $ 4,814,069 $ 4,814,069 All Debt
Principal Payment 724,000 $ $ 919,000 $ 1,028,000 $ 1,138,000 $ 2,223,035 $ 3,359,568 $ 3,494,458 $ 3,634,210 $ 3,782,988 Interest Payment 1,222,494 1,312,098 1,181,113 1,049,309 2,369,114 3,639,933 3,504,238 3,363,066 3,217,334 Total Debt Service 1,946,494 $ $ 2,231,098 $ 2,209,113 $ 2,187,309 $ 4,592,148 $ 6,999,501 $ 6,998,695 $ 6,997,275 $ 7,000,322 Current Debt Service
2018 Installment Sale Agreement (Refunding 2011 A Revenue Bond) Principal Payment $ 514,000 $ 699,000 $ 798,000 $ 898,000 $ 926,000 $ 961,000 $ 995,000 $ 1,030,000 $ 1,065,000 Interest Payment 866,571 836,698 714,513 591,909 561,314 526,632 492,226 456,606 420,853 Total Debt Service 1,380,571 $ $ 1,535,698 $ 1,512,513 $ 1,489,909 $ 1,487,314 $ 1,487,632 $ 1,487,226 $ 1,486,606 $ 1,485,853 2019 Sewer Revenue Certificates of Particpation (2019 Financing Project) Principal Payment $ 210,000 $ 220,000 $ 230,000 $ 240,000 $ 250,000 $ 260,000 $ 270,000 $ 280,000 $ 295,000 Interest Payment 355,923 475,400 466,600 457,400 447,800 437,800 427,400 416,600 405,400 Total Debt Service 565,923 $ $ 695,400 $ 696,600 $ 697,400 $ 697,800 $ 697,800 $ 697,400 $ 696,600 $ 700,400 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Debt Service
FYE 2020 FYE 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Future Revenue Bond Issuance
Debt Issuance Input $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $ $ 32,000,000 $     ‐ 32,000,000 $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ 2020 Issue 12345 6 7 89
Principal Payment 20 years $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ Interest Payment 4.25%                    ‐ ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ Total Debt Service $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ 2021 Issue 1234 5 6 7 8
Principal Payment 20 years $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ Interest Payment 4.25%                    ‐ ‐                    ‐                    ‐                    ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ Total Debt Service $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ 2022 Issue 123 4 5 6 7
Principal Payment 20 years $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ Interest Payment 4.25%                    ‐ ‐                    ‐                    ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ Total Debt Service $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ 2023 Issue 12 3 4 5 6
Principal Payment 20 years $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ Interest Payment 4.25%                    ‐ ‐                    ‐                       ‐                       ‐                       ‐ Total Debt Service $                 ‐ ‐ $                 ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $                   ‐ $ 2024 Issue 12345
Principal Payment 20 years $ 1,047,035 $ 1,091,534 $ 1,137,924 $ 1,186,286 $ 1,236,703 Interest Payment 4.25% 1,360,000 1,315,501 1,269,111 1,220,749 1,170,332 Total Debt Service $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 2025 Issue 1234
Principal Payment 20 years $ 1,047,035 $ 1,091,534 $ 1,137,924 $ 1,186,286Interest Payment 4.25% 1,360,000 1,315,501 1,269,111 1,220,749 Total Debt Service $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 $ 2,407,035 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Improvement Plan
Project Description Funding Source FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 All Sewer CIP by Funding Source
SRF $ 1,225,740 $ 207,000 $ 121,000 $ 195,438 $ 164,954 $ 82,553 $ 85,236 $ 88,006 $ 90,866 Sewer Bond Refi 14,055,000 ‐ 2,955,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 2,580,000               ‐ 2,420,000                           ‐ Developer Fees 2,681,421 321,198 554,223 200,000 207,000 214,000 221,000 229,000 237,000 Unfunded 37,208,055 ‐ 4,388,000 5,746,000 3,045,000 2,682,350 2,783,642 3,188,263 1,738,911 WWTFR 67,706,101 5,085,261 1,261,928 84,590 30,687,340 30,090,178 93,109 96,135 99,259 Total All Sewer CIP by Funding Source 122,876,317 $ $ 5,613,459 $ 9,280,151 $ 9,276,028 $ 37,154,294 $ 35,649,081 $ 5,602,987 $ 3,601,404 $ 2,166,036 Sewer Infastructure CIP
Sewer Replacement Program
Phase III ‐ Putnam/RR to Plano SRF $ 107,000
Phase IV ‐ Baker/Murry SRF 46,000Phase V ‐ Murry/Harrison to Putnam SRF 118,000Phase VI ‐ Roche/Alley/Henrahan SRF 85,000 Total Sewer Replacement Program 107,000 $ $ 46,000 $ 118,000 $                 ‐ 85,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Island Annexation Sewer Projects
*Area 1 (456A & 457) Poplar/Brown/Wisconsin/Jaye St Sewer Bond Refi $ 1,200,000 *Area 5 (456B & 456C) Olive/Center/Cloverleaf/Jaye St Sewer Bond Refi 1,755,000 >Annexation 474 ‐ Beverly Grand Area Boyles/Beverly/Prospect/Maston Sts Sewer Bond Refi 1,500,000 >Annexation 475 ‐ Westfield/Jaye Area Villa/Woods/Jaye/Mulberry Sewer Bond Refi 1,550,000 >Annexation 476 ‐ Akin/Ponca Area Yates/Worth/3rd/4th/Lincoln/Gibbons Sewer Bond Refi 3,050,000 >Annexation 478 ‐ Cobb/Dogwood Areas Cobb/Dogwood/Elderwood/Putnam Sewer Bond Refi 2,580,000 >Annexation 479 ‐ Roby Island Area Atkins/Lucy/Waukesha/Maston/Cobb/ S Sewer Bond Refi 2,420,000 Total Island Annexation Sewer Projects $ ‐ $ 2,955,000 $ 3,050,000 $ 3,050,000 $ 2,580,000 $           ‐ 2,420,000 $                       ‐ $ Other Projects
Lift Station Upgrade SRF $ 100,000 $ 75,000 $ 77,438 $ 79,954 $ 82,553 $ 85,236 $ 88,006 $ 90,866 Main St. @ SR 190 Casing (Poplar conn) Unfunded 58,853
Main St. @ SR 190 Vandalia Ave Pipe (Poplar conn) Unfunded 85,698Mathew St Capacity Analysis ‐ Lift St. No. 11 Mulberry to Henderson Developer Fees 15,000 Mulberry (Los Robles east) Unfunded 91,000
Newcomb ‐ Henderson south to Grand Ave. ‐ Pipe Unfunded 396,000Hwy 190 ‐ Jaye St. to E. St. ‐ Pipe Unfunded 352,000Hwy 190 ‐ E. St. to Main St. ‐ Pipe Unfunded 151,000 Vandalia Ave. ‐ Main St. to Plano St. ‐ Pipe Developer Fees 361,000 Total Other Projects $ 115,000 $ 939,000 $ 473,438 $ 79,954 $ 173,553 $ 229,787 $ 88,006 $ 90,866 Sewer Infastructure CIP by Funding Source
SRF $ 207,000 $ 121,000 $ 195,438 $ 164,954 $ 82,553 $ 85,236 $ 88,006 $ 90,866 Sewer Bond Refi ‐ 2,955,000 3,050,000 3,050,000 2,580,000               ‐ 2,420,000                           ‐ Developer Fees 15,000                  ‐ 361,000                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐                           ‐ Unfunded ‐ 503,000                  ‐ 396,000 91,000                  ‐ 144,551                           ‐ Total Sewer Infastructure CIP 222,000 $ $ 3,940,000 $ 3,641,438 $ 3,214,954 $ 2,753,553 $ 2,649,787 $ 88,006 $ 90,866

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Improvement Plan
Project Description Funding Source FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Wastewater Treatment Facility CIP
Other Projects
Blower Building Floor Coating/Noise Attenuation WWTFR $ 125,000 Canopy for dewatering equipment WWTFR 24,928
Digester #2 and #3 Repairs, incl wastegas flare replacement and piping WWTFR 2,477,475 Digester Cleaning/Coating/Equipment Replacement WWTFR 79,349 81,928 84,590 87,340 90,178 93,109 96,135 99,259 Effluent Outfall Pump Replacement WWTFR 600,000
Emergency Generator for WWTF (200kW) WWTFR 150,000
Manhole 10A Inspection/Repair WWTFR 99,760
Reclamation Area Pipeline Installation WWTFR 100,000
Septic Station Retrofit WWTFR 70,000
Sludge/Grit Staging Area WWTFR 300,000
Sludge Line ‐ Westwood Bridge over Tule River WWTFR 30,000 WAS Pump Replacement WWTFR 300,000
Wastewater Needs Assessment and Master Plan WWTFR 38,828 Total Other Projects $ 3,765,340 $ 111,928 $ 84,590 $ 687,340 $ 90,178 $ 93,109 $ 96,135 $ 99,259 Digester #1 and #4 Repairs
Digester Design WWTFR $ 325,000
Digester Construction Unfunded 1,500,000
Total Digester #1 and #4 Repairs 325,000 $ $           ‐ 1,500,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Odor Control Project ‐ Phase 2
Odor Control Design WWTFR $ 250,000
Odor ControlConstruction Unfunded 1,750,000
Total Odor Control Project ‐ Phase 2 $ ‐ $ 250,000 $           ‐ 1,750,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Office Building Repair
Office Building ‐ Design WWTFR $ 200,000
Office Building ‐ Relocation to temp structure WWTFR 50,000 Office Building ‐ Remediation and Demolition WWTFR 100,000Office Building ‐ Construction WWTFR 700,000 Total Office Building Repair $ 350,000 $               ‐ 700,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Plant #2 Evaluation & Repairs
Plant #2 ‐ Evaluation WWTFR $ 25,000
Plant #2 ‐ Design WWTFR 125,000Plant #2 ‐ Construction Unfunded 400,000 Total Plant #2 Evaluation & Repairs 150,000 $ $               ‐ 400,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ Plant #1 Evaluation & Repairs
Plant #1 ‐ Evaluation Unfunded $ 25,000Plant #1 ‐ Design incl re‐asphalt Unfunded $ 125,000 Plant #1 ‐ Construction incl asphalt repairs Unfunded 600,000 Total Plant #1 Evaluation & Repairs $ ‐ $ 150,000 $               ‐ 600,000 $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $                       ‐ $ City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Improvement Plan
Project Description Funding Source FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Tertiary Treatment
Tertiary Treatment ‐ CEQA WWTFR $ 269,921
Tertiary Treatment ‐ Property Acquisition WWTFR $ 200,000 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Design Unfunded 585,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Nitrification/De‐nitrification Project ‐ Consultant Service WWTFR 200,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Nitrification/De‐nitrification Project ‐ Construction UnfundedTertiary Treatment ‐ Construction / Sludge bed Relocation Unfunded 1,000,000 1,500,000 Total Tertiary Treatment $ 469,921 $ 785,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 31,500,000 $ 31,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $           ‐ 1,500,000 $ Wastewater Treatment Facility CIP by Funding Source
WWTFR $ 5,060,261 $ 1,261,928 $ 84,590 $ 30,687,340 $ 30,090,178 $ 93,109 $ 96,135 $ 99,259 Unfunded ‐ 2,635,000 3,850,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000               ‐ 1,500,000 Total Wastewater Treatment Facility CIP 5,060,261 $ $ 3,896,928 $ 3,934,590 $ 32,187,340 $ 31,090,178 $ 1,093,109 $ 1,596,135 $ 99,259

TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Master Plans
MASTER PLANS ‐ Sewer Master Plan Payback Developer Fees $ 187,141 $ 193,223 $ 200,000 $ 207,000 $ 214,000 $ 221,000 $ 229,000 $ 237,000 MASTER PLANS ‐ Master Plan Update Developer Fees 71,533 MASTER PLANS ‐ Comprehensive Impact Fee Study Developer Fees 47,524MASTER PLANS ‐ Comprehensive Impact Fee Study WWTFR 25,000 Total Master Plans 331,198 $ $ 193,223 $ 200,000 $ 207,000 $ 214,000 $ 221,000 $ 229,000 $ 237,000 Stormwater Capital Projects
STORMWATER ‐ Programmed Capital Project Budget Unfunded $ ‐ $ 1,250,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,545,000 $ 1,591,350 $ 1,639,091 $ 1,688,263 $ 1,738,911 Total Stormwater Capital Projects $ ‐ $ 1,250,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,545,000 $ 1,591,350 $ 1,639,091 $ 1,688,263 $ 1,738,911 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Improvement Plan
Asset # Description Acq date ENR‐CCI  Total Life  Acqusition Cost  Salvage Value Other Period
Accumulated
Depreciation
Current Period
Depreciation Net Value TrendedDepreciation
Replacement Cost
New Less
Deprecition (RCNLD)
Assets Summary Total Sewer System $               ‐ 41,605,682 $                             $                5,994,939 $              11,599,242 $              24,011,502 $              57,970,875 $              42,778,613 2602 Grit Collector Rehab 6/30/1999 1.92 240                                $                       ‐ 31,775 $                             $                        3,177 $                       ‐ 28,597 $                             $                       ‐ 60,937 $ 5695 Chlorine Building 6/30/1999 1.92 600                                                       ‐ 279,583                                                        11,183                         75,488                       192,912                       166,215                       369,961 6545 1998 Ford F‐150 Pickup 2/10/1998 1.96 60                                                           ‐ 15,890                                                        10,593                            ‐ 5,297                                                         ‐ 31,189 6896‐1 2003Freightliner 5‐7 Ton Dump Truck 7/1/2014 1.18 84                                                           ‐ 63,044                                ‐                                                         ‐ 63,044                                                         ‐ 74,702 6935‐1 ISO Model 6700FR Refrigerated Composite Sa 9/22/1999 1.92 60                                                           ‐ 13,007                                                          4,553                            ‐ 8,455                                                         ‐ 24,945 6939‐1 Repair 125hp Effluent Pump 11/9/1999 1.92 60                                                           ‐ 15,193                                                          5,064                          ‐ 10,129                                                         ‐ 29,137 6940‐1 Digester waste Gas Burner 6/1/2000 1.87 60                                                             ‐ 3,629                                                              786                            ‐ 2,843                                                           ‐ 6,778 6983 Effluent Flow meter 24" 150 psi Outfall Line 6/9/2000 1.87 60                                                             ‐ 2,955                                                              640                            ‐ 2,315                                                           ‐ 5,519 7046 Land‐ Newcomb/Morton 7/1/1953 19.37                               ‐                          ‐ 22,000                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 22,000                                                      426,058 7047 Land‐ Newcomb/Morton 7/2/1953 19.37                               ‐                          ‐ 22,000                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 22,000                                                      426,058 7048 Land‐ Newcomb/Morton 7/3/1953 19.37                               ‐                          ‐ 22,000                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 22,000                                                      426,058 7049 Land‐ Newcomb/Morton 7/4/1953 19.37                               ‐                          ‐ 22,000                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 22,000                                                      426,058 7050 Land‐ Prospect/Morton 7/5/1953 19.37                               ‐                            ‐ 5,500                                ‐                                ‐                                                           ‐ 5,500                                                      106,515 7144 Gantry Crane 9/6/2000 1.87 60                                                             ‐ 1,483                                                              247                            ‐ 1,236                                                           ‐ 2,769 7188 Land‐ Underhill Property 12261 Road 216 11/3/2000 1.87                               ‐                        ‐ 748,877                                ‐                                ‐                                                       ‐ 748,877                                                   1,398,775 7191 Storage Building 6/30/2001 1.83 480                                                         ‐ 19,696                                ‐                                                          8,863                         10,833                         16,259                         19,873 7360 169 Acres land‐ Nuckols Property (302‐010‐0‐0 6/30/2003 1.74                               ‐                     ‐ 1,144,912                                ‐                                ‐                                                    ‐ 1,144,912                                                   1,987,097 7365 Cast Iron Case Pump 10/24/2002 1.78 120                                                           ‐ 9,799                                ‐                                                           ‐ 9,799                                                         ‐ 17,416 7369 Percolation Pond on the Underhill Property (8 6/30/2003 1.74                               ‐                        ‐ 376,541                                ‐                                ‐                                                       ‐ 376,541                                                      653,521 7369‐1 Percolation Pond on the Underhill Property (FY 6/30/2004 1.63                               ‐                          ‐ 34,746                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 34,746                                                        56,744 7371 Monitoring Well FY2003 #89‐9674 6/30/2003 1.74 600                                                       ‐ 128,288                                ‐                                                        41,052                         87,236                         71,249                       151,407 7450 Effluent Manhole‐ Teapot Dome (89‐9695) 6/30/2004 1.63 480                                                         ‐ 24,724                                ‐                                                          9,272                         15,453                         15,142                         25,236 7483 Land‐ Hunsaker Property (163.4 acres for Perc 10/8/2004 1.63                               ‐                        ‐ 743,829                                ‐                                ‐                                                       ‐ 743,829                                                   1,214,775 7513 Upgrade SCADA 6/30/2006 1.50 60                                                           ‐ 43,927                                ‐                                                         ‐ 43,927                                                         ‐ 65,849 7514 Sludge Drying Beds Expansion 6/30/2006 1.50 600                                                       ‐ 863,485                                ‐                                                      224,506                       638,979                       336,549                       957,872 7581 2008 Ford F150 4x2 Regular Cab Shortbed Pick 4/17/2008 1.40 60                                                           ‐ 14,178                                ‐                                                         ‐ 14,178                                                         ‐ 19,823 7605 2008 Ford F350 with 12' Flatbed and Crane (EQ 5/2/2008 1.40 84                                                           ‐ 33,744                                ‐                                                         ‐ 33,744                                                         ‐ 47,179 7616 Waukesha Model#VGS11GSID Standby Engine 11/28/2007 1.46 120                                                       ‐ 282,788                                ‐                                                       ‐ 282,788                                                       ‐ 412,236 7668 Rotary Screw Air Compressor and Refrigerated 6/30/2009 1.36 120                                                         ‐ 17,318                                ‐                                                         ‐ 17,318                                                         ‐ 23,481 7669 Rotary Screw Air Compressor and Refrigerated 6/30/2009 1.36 120                                                         ‐ 17,318                                ‐                                                         ‐ 17,318                                                         ‐ 23,481 7670 Orival Electric Filter with 500micron Screen an 7/30/2008 1.40 120                                                           ‐ 8,911                                ‐                                                           ‐ 8,911                                                         ‐ 12,459 7671 Air Conditioning Unit for Headworks Building 7/1/2008 1.40 120                                                           ‐ 7,152                                ‐                                                           ‐ 7,152                                                           ‐ 9,999 7672 Air Conditioning Unit for Outfall Building 7/1/2008 1.40 120                                                           ‐ 7,152                                ‐                                                           ‐ 7,152                                                           ‐ 9,999 7702 Reclamation Road 216 Pipeline and Weir 6/30/2010 1.32 480                                                       ‐ 161,723                                ‐                                                        36,387                       125,336                         48,025                       165,422 7739 2011Kawasaki KAF400ABFL Mule Off‐Road EQ 4/13/2011 1.28 60                                                             ‐ 9,394                                ‐                                                           ‐ 9,394                                                         ‐ 12,035 7746 5 Ton 14Seer Trane HVAC ‐ WWTF Control Bui 5/31/2011 1.28 120                                                         ‐ 13,000                                ‐                                                        10,508                           2,492                         13,462                           3,192 7747 5 Ton 14Seer Trane HVAC ‐ WWTF Control Bui 5/31/2011 1.28 120                                                         ‐ 13,000                                ‐                                                        10,508                           2,492                         13,462                           3,192 7748 3 1/2 Ton 14 Seer Trane HVAC ‐ WWTF Sludge 5/31/2011 1.28 120                                                           ‐ 5,400                                ‐                                                          4,365                           1,035                           5,592                           1,326 7749 150 hp Turbine Pump with 150' Column (Recla 1/30/2011 1.28 120                                                         ‐ 23,157                                ‐                                                        19,491                           3,667                         24,970                           4,697 7847 12' Henke Blade & JRB Hyd Coupler for WWTF 6/14/2013 1.22 60                                                           ‐ 28,643                                ‐                                                         ‐ 28,643                                                         ‐ 34,861 8044 2018 Peterbilt 348 Dump Truck EQ36879 11/28/2017 1.08 120                                                       ‐ 134,593                                ‐                                                        21,310                       113,282                         23,062                       122,595 8046 Sewage Plant 7/1/1953 19.37 600                                                       ‐ 858,755                                                      825,020                          ‐ 33,735                                                 ‐ 16,630,897 8057 Super Shredder SS6‐8000 Lower walks in‐line M 1/16/2018 1.05 60                                                           ‐ 17,239                                ‐                                                          5,172                         12,067                           5,432                         12,676 8066 2018 Ford F250 4x2 Crew Cab Pickup Truck EQ 3/14/2018 1.05 60                                                           ‐ 28,508                                ‐                                                          7,602                         20,906                           7,986                         21,960 8099 Triple Seal System Submersible Mixer XRW 30 11/12/2018 1.05 60                                                             ‐ 7,376                                ‐                                                              984                           6,393                           1,033                           6,715 8114 John Deere TE 4x2 Electric Utility Vehicle EQ#6 4/15/2019 1.03 60                                                           ‐ 14,632                                ‐                                                              732                         13,900                               754                         14,317 8122 World Lift WRTD60 Forklift EQ#6882 4/30/2019 1.03 120                                                         ‐ 49,795                                ‐                                                              830                         48,965                               855                         50,434 8137 2019 John Deere 624L Wheel loader EQ#6884 6/27/2019 1.03 84                                                         ‐ 201,464                                ‐                                ‐                                                       ‐ 201,464                                                      207,508 8139 Boiler Trerice ‐ 3 way Valve Model # 940E‐25K 6/28/2019 1.03 60                                                           ‐ 10,054                                ‐                                ‐                                                         ‐ 10,054                                                        10,356 8257 Effluent Outfall System 1/1/1986 2.71 360                                                       ‐ 118,275                                                        60,897                          ‐ 57,378                                                       ‐ 319,983 8258 Monitoring Wells 7/1/1986 2.71 360                                                           ‐ 3,265                                                          1,629                            ‐ 1,636                                                           ‐ 8,833 8277 Outfall To Drying Creek 6/1/1989 2.52 600                                                       ‐ 419,182                                                      101,303                       150,905                       166,974                       635,017                       420,411 8281 Industrial Monitoring Manholes 6/1/1989 2.52 600                                                         ‐ 20,625                                                          4,984                           7,425                           8,216                         31,243                         20,686 8285 Replace RAS Motor and Drive 6/1/1989 2.52 120                                                         ‐ 13,615                                                         ‐ 13,615                                ‐                                                         ‐ 34,281 89‐9623 WWTF Bar Screen and Auger Conveyor 10/31/2010 1.32 480                                                       ‐ 408,681                                ‐                                                        88,072                       320,609                       116,240                       423,149 89‐9636 WWTF Biological Odor Control System 10/16/2018 1.05 240                                                    ‐ 1,255,346                                ‐                                                        47,075                    1,208,270                         49,449                    1,269,194 89‐9642 6 Inch Transfer Line From Digester 1 to Digeste 9/30/2013 1.22 240                                                       ‐ 128,159                                ‐                                                        36,846                         91,313                         44,846                       111,138 89‐9650‐ WWTF Telemetry and SCADA Hardware System 6/5/2015 1.16 120                                                       ‐ 194,295                                ‐                                                        79,337                       114,958                         91,863                       133,107 89‐9658 Digester Mixing Pump and Valves 4/9/2016 1.12 120                                                         ‐ 51,514                                ‐                                                        16,742                         34,772                         18,817                         39,082 89‐9659 Influent Pump Station, 4 Flygt Pumps, and VFD 4/30/2014 1.18 300                                                       ‐ 928,900                                ‐                                                      191,972                       736,927                       227,469                       873,189 89‐9675 Reclamation Area Monitor Well 1/31/2011 1.28 480                                                         ‐ 28,621                                ‐                                                          6,023                         22,599                           7,716                         28,952 89‐9683‐ DAFT ‐ Chain, Drive, and Flights 8/28/2014 1.18 240                                                       ‐ 109,761                                ‐                                                        26,526                         83,236                         31,430                         98,626 89‐9694 WWTF Operations Building Reroof With Polyu 6/30/2011 1.28 240                                                         ‐ 67,377                                ‐                                                        26,951                         40,426                         34,528                         51,791 9015‐10 Land ‐ Grand Ave (APN#251‐350‐016) 6/30/2019 1.03                               ‐                        ‐ 301,285                                ‐                                ‐                                                       ‐ 301,285                                                      310,324 9064 Sewer Lift Station /wt cons plt 7/1/1972 6.63 600                                                         ‐ 15,000                                                          8,687                           5,411                               902                         93,446                           5,981 9087 Sewage Plant Addition 6/1/1979 3.87 600                                                    ‐ 5,078,995                                                   2,234,488                    1,833,697                    1,010,810                 15,741,386                    3,911,218 9088 Sewer Plant Piping 6/1/1981 3.29 600                                                         ‐ 14,809                                                          5,923                           5,345                           3,541                         37,039                         11,639 9089 Sewage Plant Expansion 6/1/1981 3.29 600                                                         ‐ 41,736                                                        15,690                         15,624                         10,423                       102,929                         34,260 9090 Sewage Plant Expansion 6/1/1983 2.86 600                                                           ‐ 4,080                                                          1,469                           1,472                           1,139                           8,405                           3,255 9091 Sewage Plant Expansion 6/1/1987 2.64 600                                                    ‐ 1,893,126                                                      529,991                       683,001                       680,134                    3,198,978                    1,793,690 9338 Plant Expansion 6/30/1988 2.57 600                                                         ‐ 51,387                                                        13,360                         18,500                         19,527                         81,921                         50,210 9602 Sewer Equipment, Miscellaneous Capital Repa 6/30/1992 2.33 120                                                         ‐ 59,895                                                        53,408                            ‐ 6,487                                                       ‐ 139,612 9606‐1 WWTF Grit System Towers and Barscreens 6/30/2009 1.36 600                                                    ‐ 1,002,893                                ‐                                                      200,579                       802,314                       271,958                    1,087,831 9607 Sludge Bed Expansion ‐ Airport 3/31/1997 1.99 360                                                       ‐ 261,266                                                        37,013                       156,760                         67,494                       386,473                       134,614 9608 Sewer Manhole, Olive/Wisconsin 6/30/1997 1.99 600                                                           ‐ 1,752                                                              140                               631                               981                           1,537                           1,957 9608‐09 Effluent Pipeline & Land Leveling at Reclamati 6/30/2009 1.36 600                                                    ‐ 1,036,610                                ‐                                                      207,322                       829,288                       281,100                    1,124,404 9630 Sludge Pond Paving 6/30/1989 2.52 240                                                         ‐ 37,973                                                        20,324                          ‐ 17,649                                                         ‐ 95,609 9631 WWTF Flow meter Rehabilitation 6/30/1993 2.23 240                                                           ‐ 4,951                                                          1,980                            ‐ 2,970                                                         ‐ 11,041 9635 Digester Rehabilitation 6/30/1991 2.40 480                                                         ‐ 34,987                                                          8,747                         15,744                         10,496                         58,858                         25,225 9638 Lift Station Pump Replacement 6/30/1990 2.46 240                                                         ‐ 36,503                                                        20,077                          ‐ 16,426                                                         ‐ 89,637 9639‐1 WWTF Huber Screw Press Sludge Dewatering 6/30/2017 1.08 480                                                    ‐ 4,754,075                                ‐                                                      237,704                    4,516,371                       257,245                    4,887,659 9646 Outfall Pump Drive 6/30/1991 2.40 120                                                         ‐ 14,567                                                         ‐ 14,567                                ‐                                                         ‐ 35,008 9648 WWTF Expansion Design 6/30/1994 2.15 240                                                    ‐ 1,227,609                                                      429,663                        ‐ 797,945                                                    ‐ 2,637,673 9655 Temporary Sludge Beds 6/30/1993 2.23 60                                                           ‐ 85,604                                                         ‐ 85,604                                ‐                                                       ‐ 190,920 9666‐1 Franklin Miller Spirallift Washer Grinder Comp 11/29/2017 1.08 120                                                       ‐ 229,669                                ‐                                                        36,364                       193,304                         39,354                       209,196 9673‐1 Cleaver Brooks Fire tube Boiler Model #CFC‐70 2/16/2018 1.05 120                                                         ‐ 82,790                                ‐                                                        11,728                         71,061                         12,320                         74,644 9673‐2 Cleaver Brooks Fire tube Boiler Model #CFC‐70 2/16/2018 1.05 120                                                         ‐ 82,790                                ‐                                                        11,728                         71,061                         12,320                         74,644 9676 Monitoring Wells 7/1/1995 2.12 600                                                       ‐ 156,904                                                        23,013                         54,954                         78,937                       165,593                       167,653 9696 WWTF Expansion From 4MGD to 8MGD 3/31/1996 2.07 600                                                 ‐ 13,487,974                                                   1,416,237                    4,855,671                    7,216,066                 12,967,642                 14,919,759 9813 Digester Repair 6/30/2000 1.87 480                                                       ‐ 123,961                                                          3,099                         55,782                         65,080                       109,980                       121,558 9814 Digester Repair 6/30/2000 1.87 480                                                    ‐ 1,086,358                                                        27,159                       488,861                       570,338                       963,838                    1,065,294 9815 Hydrogen Sulfide Removal System 6/30/2000 1.87 480                                                         ‐ 24,344                                                              609                         10,955                         12,780                         21,599                         23,871 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Usage Forecast
3‐yr average
CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 CY 2024 CY 2025 CY 2026 CY 2027 CY 2028 Retail Usage Summary
Single Family Residential 2,362,076 2,544,313 1,974,167 2,443,120 2,455,336 2,467,613 2,479,951 2,492,350 2,504,812 2,517,336 2,529,923 2,542,573 Multi‐Family Residential 503,318 484,304 405,241 490,570 493,023 495,488 497,966 500,455 502,958 505,472 508,000 510,540 Commercial/Institutional 570,647 606,507 511,233 596,534 599,517 602,514 605,527 608,555 611,597 614,655 617,729 620,817 Industrial 22,068 21,077 12,372 20,730 20,834 20,938 21,043 21,148 21,253 21,360 21,467 21,574 Landscape Irrigation 241,303 279,744 230,431 264,361 265,683 267,012 268,347 269,688 271,037 272,392 273,754 275,123 Other 165,205 180,099 154,814 174,392 175,264 176,140 177,021 177,906 178,796 179,690 180,588 181,491 Total Retail Usage Summary 3,864,617 4,116,044 3,288,258 3,989,708 4,009,657 4,029,705 4,049,854 4,070,103 4,090,453 4,110,906 4,131,460 4,152,117

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
Single Family Residential
January 104,360 163,949 72,299 134,155 134,825 135,499 136,177 136,858 137,542 138,230 138,921 139,616 February 96,186 126,931 94,284 111,559 112,116 112,677 113,240 113,806 114,375 114,947 115,522 116,100 March 126,077 129,327 56,319 127,702 128,341 128,982 129,627 130,275 130,927 131,581 132,239 132,900 April 178,891 128,599 54,666 153,745 154,514 155,286 156,063 156,843 157,627 158,415 159,207 160,004 May 223,134 232,216 28,462 227,675 228,813 229,957 231,107 232,263 233,424 234,591 235,764 236,943 June 226,588 281,732 207,213 238,511 239,704 240,902 242,107 243,317 244,534 245,756 246,985 248,220 July 277,166 264,395 270,913 270,825 272,179 273,540 274,907 276,282 277,663 279,052 280,447 281,849 August 275,233 349,428 343,943 322,868 324,482 326,105 327,735 329,374 331,021 332,676 334,339 336,011 September 262,691 274,181 295,157 277,343 278,730 280,123 281,524 282,932 284,346 285,768 287,197 288,633 October 229,824 219,989 232,436 227,416 228,553 229,696 230,845 231,999 233,159 234,325 235,496 236,674 November 215,867 231,877 172,573 206,772 207,806 208,845 209,889 210,939 211,994 213,054 214,119 215,189 December 146,059 141,689 145,902 144,550 145,273 145,999 146,729 147,463 148,200 148,941 149,686 150,434 Total Single Family Residential 2,362,076 2,544,313 1,974,167 2,443,120 2,455,336 2,467,613 2,479,951 2,492,350 2,504,812 2,517,336 2,529,923 2,542,573 Multi‐Family Residential
January 30,905 39,700 26,296 35,303 35,479 35,656 35,835 36,014 36,194 36,375 36,557 36,740 February 30,425 30,437 30,619 30,431 30,583 30,736 30,890 31,044 31,199 31,355 31,512 31,670 March 37,344 31,693 19,066 34,519 34,691 34,865 35,039 35,214 35,390 35,567 35,745 35,924 April 43,309 30,310 17,684 36,810 36,994 37,179 37,364 37,551 37,739 37,928 38,117 38,308 May 46,269 41,871 8,619 44,070 44,290 44,512 44,734 44,958 45,183 45,409 45,636 45,864 June 43,072 47,888 38,790 43,250 43,466 43,684 43,902 44,122 44,342 44,564 44,787 45,011 July 48,970 41,754 41,582 44,102 44,323 44,544 44,767 44,991 45,216 45,442 45,669 45,897 August 47,067 53,884 54,651 51,867 52,127 52,387 52,649 52,912 53,177 53,443 53,710 53,979 September 50,331 46,727 48,850 48,636 48,879 49,124 49,369 49,616 49,864 50,113 50,364 50,616 October 43,521 40,209 43,386 42,372 42,584 42,797 43,011 43,226 43,442 43,659 43,877 44,097 November 46,164 45,564 40,935 44,221 44,442 44,664 44,888 45,112 45,338 45,564 45,792 46,021 December 35,941 34,267 34,763 34,990 35,165 35,341 35,518 35,695 35,874 36,053 36,234 36,415 Total Multi‐Family Residential 503,318 484,304 405,241 490,570 493,023 495,488 497,966 500,455 502,958 505,472 508,000 510,540 Commercial/InstitutionalJanuary 31,288 42,385 27,333 36,837 37,021 37,206 37,392 37,579 37,767 37,956 38,145 38,336 February 32,707 37,287 35,638 34,997 35,172 35,348 35,525 35,702 35,881 36,060 36,240 36,422 March 42,149 36,840 21,482 39,495 39,692 39,890 40,090 40,290 40,492 40,694 40,898 41,102 April 47,645 38,652 19,332 43,149 43,364 43,581 43,799 44,018 44,238 44,459 44,682 44,905 May 51,331 55,719 3,001 53,525 53,793 54,062 54,332 54,604 54,877 55,151 55,427 55,704 June 47,919 58,907 52,303 53,043 53,308 53,575 53,843 54,112 54,382 54,654 54,928 55,202 July 52,405 50,231 53,566 52,067 52,328 52,589 52,852 53,117 53,382 53,649 53,917 54,187 August 53,170 72,589 73,512 66,424 66,756 67,090 67,425 67,762 68,101 68,441 68,784 69,128 September 57,967 61,162 69,296 62,808 63,122 63,438 63,755 64,074 64,394 64,716 65,040 65,365 October 55,398 54,983 55,513 55,298 55,574 55,852 56,132 56,412 56,694 56,978 57,263 57,549 November 57,959 60,523 59,036 59,173 59,469 59,766 60,065 60,365 60,667 60,970 61,275 61,581 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Usage Forecast
3‐yr average
CY 2017 CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 CY 2024 CY 2025 CY 2026 CY 2027 CY 2028 December 40,709 37,229 41,221 39,720 39,918 40,118 40,318 40,520 40,723 40,926 41,131 41,337 Total Commercial/Institutional 570,647 606,507 511,233 596,534 599,517 602,514 605,527 608,555 611,597 614,655 617,729 620,817 IndustrialJanuary 1,140 1,519 700 1,330 1,336 1,343 1,350 1,356 1,363 1,370 1,377 1,384 February 1,271 1,363 944 1,317 1,324 1,330 1,337 1,344 1,350 1,357 1,364 1,371 March 2,065 1,634 6 1,850 1,859 1,868 1,877 1,887 1,896 1,906 1,915 1,925 April 1,482 1,484 20 1,483 1,490 1,498 1,505 1,513 1,520 1,528 1,536 1,543 May 2,681 2,053 3 2,367 2,379 2,391 2,403 2,415 2,427 2,439 2,451 2,463 June 1,753 1,949 1,370 1,691 1,699 1,708 1,716 1,725 1,733 1,742 1,751 1,759 July 1,416 2,027 1,846 1,763 1,772 1,781 1,790 1,799 1,808 1,817 1,826 1,835 August 2,528 2,505 2,634 2,556 2,568 2,581 2,594 2,607 2,620 2,633 2,646 2,660 September 1,833 1,814 1,448 1,698 1,707 1,715 1,724 1,733 1,741 1,750 1,759 1,767 October 2,100 1,819 1,346 1,755 1,764 1,773 1,781 1,790 1,799 1,808 1,817 1,826 November 2,348 1,825 1,177 1,783 1,792 1,801 1,810 1,819 1,828 1,838 1,847 1,856 December 1,451 1,085 878 1,138 1,144 1,149 1,155 1,161 1,167 1,173 1,178 1,184 Total Industrial 22,068 21,077 12,372 20,730 20,834 20,938 21,043 21,148 21,253 21,360 21,467 21,574 Landscape IrrigationJanuary 3,907 11,024 2,441 7,466 7,503 7,540 7,578 7,616 7,654 7,692 7,731 7,769 February 2,821 8,051 3,927 5,436 5,463 5,490 5,518 5,546 5,573 5,601 5,629 5,657 March 3,712 10,898 959 7,305 7,342 7,378 7,415 7,452 7,489 7,527 7,565 7,602 April 14,739 8,463 1,587 11,601 11,659 11,717 11,776 11,835 11,894 11,953 12,013 12,073 May 19,707 22,096 2,189 20,902 21,006 21,111 21,217 21,323 21,429 21,536 21,644 21,752 June 21,709 33,341 23,247 26,099 26,229 26,361 26,492 26,625 26,758 26,892 27,026 27,161 July 34,450 32,246 29,950 32,215 32,376 32,538 32,701 32,864 33,029 33,194 33,360 33,527 August 31,840 41,229 46,287 39,785 39,984 40,184 40,385 40,587 40,790 40,994 41,199 41,405 September 32,614 36,851 43,555 37,673 37,862 38,051 38,241 38,432 38,625 38,818 39,012 39,207 October 30,724 30,584 36,965 32,758 32,921 33,086 33,251 33,418 33,585 33,753 33,922 34,091 November 30,561 31,425 23,349 28,445 28,587 28,730 28,874 29,018 29,163 29,309 29,456 29,603 December 14,519 13,536 15,975 14,677 14,750 14,824 14,898 14,972 15,047 15,123 15,198 15,274 Total Landscape Irrigation 241,303 279,744 230,431 264,361 265,683 267,012 268,347 269,688 271,037 272,392 273,754 275,123 OtherJanuary 954 3,678 924 2,316 2,328 2,339 2,351 2,363 2,374 2,386 2,398 2,410 February 979 2,709 1,352 1,844 1,853 1,862 1,872 1,881 1,891 1,900 1,910 1,919 March 1,593 2,972 359 2,283 2,294 2,305 2,317 2,328 2,340 2,352 2,364 2,375 April 5,225 3,205 1,095 4,215 4,236 4,257 4,279 4,300 4,321 4,343 4,365 4,387 May 16,940 15,728 203 16,334 16,416 16,498 16,580 16,663 16,746 16,830 16,914 16,999 June 21,425 23,528 19,888 21,614 21,722 21,830 21,939 22,049 22,159 22,270 22,382 22,493 July 25,099 25,788 25,741 25,543 25,670 25,799 25,928 26,057 26,188 26,319 26,450 26,582 August 27,152 32,166 30,578 29,965 30,115 30,266 30,417 30,569 30,722 30,876 31,030 31,185 September 23,881 26,932 27,644 26,152 26,283 26,415 26,547 26,679 26,813 26,947 27,082 27,217 October 18,071 21,069 22,189 20,443 20,545 20,648 20,751 20,855 20,959 21,064 21,169 21,275 November 19,717 16,272 14,553 16,847 16,932 17,016 17,101 17,187 17,273 17,359 17,446 17,533 December 4,169 6,052 10,288 6,836 6,871 6,905 6,939 6,974 7,009 7,044 7,079 7,115 Total Other 165,205 180,099 154,814 174,392 175,264 176,140 177,021 177,906 178,796 179,690 180,588 181,491 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Costs Allocation
Estimated ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES ALLOCATION AMOUNTS
Costs Flow BOD TSS Flow BOD TSS
CAPITAL COSTS ALLOCATIONPhase III ‐ Putnam/RR to Plano $0 100% $0 $0 $0 Phase IV ‐ Baker/Murry 46,000 100% 46,000 0 0Phase V ‐ Murry/Harrison to Putnam 118,000 100% 118,000 0 0 Phase VI ‐ Roche/Alley/Henrahan 85,000 100% 85,000 0 0
*Area 1 (456A & 457) Poplar/Brown/Wisconsin/Jaye St 1,200,000 100% 1,200,000 0 0 *Area 5 (456B & 456C) Olive/Center/Cloverleaf/Jaye St 1,755,000 100% 1,755,000 0 0>Annexation 474 ‐ Beverly Grand Area Boyles/Beverly/Prospect/Maston Sts 1,500,000 100% 1,500,000 0 0 >Annexation 475 ‐ Westfield/Jaye Area Villa/Woods/Jaye/Mulberry 1,550,000 100% 1,550,000 0 0 >Annexation 476 ‐ Akin/Ponca Area Yates/Worth/3rd/4th/Lincoln/Gibbons 3,050,000 100% 3,050,000 0 0 >Annexation 478 ‐ Cobb/Dogwood Areas Cobb/Dogwood/Elderwood/Putnam/Thurman/Harrison 2,580,000 100% 2,580,000 0 0 >Annexation 479 ‐ Roby Island Area Atkins/Lucy/Waukesha/Maston/Cobb/ Slaughter/Roby 2,420,000 100% 2,420,000 0 0 Lift Station Upgrade 769,740 100% 769,740 0 0
Main St. @ SR 190 Casing (Poplar conn) 58,853 100% 58,853 0 0 Main St. @ SR 190 Vandalia Ave Pipe (Poplar conn) 85,698 100% 85,698 0 0 Mathew St Capacity Analysis ‐ Lift St. No. 11 Mulberry to Henderson 0 100% 0 00 Mulberry (Los Robles east) 91,000 100% 91,000 0 0
Newcomb ‐ Henderson south to Grand Ave. ‐ Pipe 396,000 100% 396,000 0 0 Hwy 190 ‐ Jaye St. to E. St. ‐ Pipe 352,000 100% 352,000 0 0 Hwy 190 ‐ E. St. to Main St. ‐ Pipe 151,000 100% 151,000 0 0 Vandalia Ave. ‐ Main St. to Plano St. ‐ Pipe 361,000 100% 361,000 0 0 Blower Building Floor Coating/Noise Attenuation 0 50% 50% 0 00 Canopy for dewatering equipment 0 50% 50% 0 00Digester #2 and #3 Repairs, incl wastegas flare replacement and piping 0 50% 50% 0 00Digester Cleaning/Coating/Equipment Replacement 840,840 50% 50% 0 420,420 420,420Effluent Outfall Pump Replacement 600,000 50% 50% 0 300,000 300,000 Emergency Generator for WWTF (200kW) 0 50% 50% 0 00Manhole 10A Inspection/Repair 0 50% 50% 0 00Reclamation Area Pipeline Installation 0 100% 0 00 Septic Station Retrofit 0 50% 50% 0 00
Sludge/Grit Staging Area 0 50% 50% 0 00
Sludge Line ‐ Westwood Bridge over Tule River 30,000 50% 50% 0 15,000 15,000 WAS Pump Replacement 0 50% 50% 0 00
Wastewater Needs Assessment and Master Plan 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 Digester #1 and #4 Repairs 0 50% 50% 0 00
Digester Design 0 50% 50% 0 00Digester Construction 1,500,000 50% 50% 0 750,000 750,000 Odor Control Project ‐ Phase 2 0 50% 50% 0 00
Odor Control Design 250,000 50% 50% 0 125,000 125,000
Odor ControlConstruction 1,750,000 50% 50% 0 875,000 875,000Office Building ‐ Design 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 Office Building ‐ Relocation to temp structure 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 Office Building ‐ Remediation and Demolition 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 Office Building ‐ Construction 700,000 34% 33% 33% 238,000 231,000 231,000 Plant #2 Evaluation & Repairs 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00
Plant #2 ‐ Evaluation 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00
Plant #2 ‐ Design 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00
Plant #2 ‐ Construction 400,000 34% 33% 33% 136,000 132,000 132,000 Plant #1 ‐ Evaluation 25,000 34% 33% 33% 8,500 8,250 8,250 Plant #1 ‐ Design incl re‐asphalt 125,000 34% 33% 33% 42,500 41,250 41,250 Plant #1 ‐ Construction incl asphalt repairs 600,000 34% 33% 33% 204,000 198,000 198,000 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Design 4,585,000 50% 50% 0 2,292,500 2,292,500 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Nitrification/De‐nitrification Project ‐ Consultant Services ‐ Plant Expansion 60,200,000 50% 50% 0 30,100,000 30,100,000 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Costs Allocation
Estimated ALLOCATION PERCENTAGES ALLOCATION AMOUNTS
Costs Flow BOD TSS Flow BOD TSS
Tertiary Treatment ‐ Nitrification/De‐nitrification Project ‐ Construction 0 50% 50% 0 00 Tertiary Treatment ‐ Construction / Sludge bed Relocation 12,500,000 50% 50% 0 6,250,000 6,250,000 MASTER PLANS ‐ Sewer Master Plan Payback 1,999,223 34% 33% 33% 679,736 659,744 659,744 MASTER PLANS ‐ Master Plan Update 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00
MASTER PLANS ‐ Comprehensive Impact Fee Study 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 MASTER PLANS ‐ Comprehensive Impact Fee Study 0 34% 33% 33% 0 00 STORMWATER ‐ Programmed Capital Project Budget 14,588,504 100% 14,588,504 0 0TOTAL $117,262,858 27.7% 36.2% 36.2% $32,466,531 $42,398,164 $42,398,164OVERALL COST ALLOCATION 2021/22 through 2030/31 Expenses
O&M $62,296,828 50% 25% 25% 31,148,414 15,574,207 15,574,207 Existing ‐ Debt Service 60,445,012 34% 33% 33% 20,551,304 19,946,854 19,946,854 Capital Costs 117,262,858 28% 36% 36% 32,466,531 42,398,164 42,398,164 Fixed Assets ‐ WWTP $17,594,180 34% 33% 33% 5,982,021 5,806,079 5,806,079 TOTAL $257,598,878 35.0% 32.5% 32.5% 90,148,270 83,725,304 83,725,304 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Costs Allocation
Customer Dwelling Flow BOD TSS BOD TSS Usage
Classification Accounts Units MGD mg/L mg/L lb/Day lb/Day (HCF/Mo)

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES
Single Family Residential ‐ Units 11,804 39,779 3.0153 250 175 6,287 4,401 120,934 Multifamily Residential ‐ Units 656 7,675 1.0669 250 175 2,224 1,557 42,788 Trailer Park ‐ Spaces 263 1,178 0.1638 250 175 341 239 6,569 48,633

COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House 23 0.0278 100 150 23 35 1,115Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 13 0.0164 200 200 27 27 659Stores, Offices, Markets 695 0.6105 150 150 764 764 24,487Hospital, Rest Homes 27 0.0202 250 100 42 17 811 Multi‐Unit with Cons 4 0.0013 250 150 3 2 51Mortuaries 2 0.0025 800 800 17 17 101 Service Stations and Auto Repairs 63 0.0695 180 280 104 162 2,788Restaurants 98 0.0834 800 600 557 417 3,346Churches 61 0.0746 150 150 93 93 2,991Schools 51 0.0518 130 100 56 43 2,079City of Porterville 23 0.0215 150 150 27 27 862 State Hospital 1 0.0013 250 100 3 1 51PVPUD 1 2,544Industrial 15 0.0215 150 100 27 18 862Septic Tanks 7 0.0114 5,400 12,000 512 1,139 456 TOTALS 13,807 51,177 5.2597 11,108 8,959 210,950
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Costs Allocation
Customer Dwelling COST ALLOCATION Total Revenue Projected Projected Monthly Classification Accounts Units Flow BOD TSS Requirement Annual Water Use (HCF) Rates ($/HCF) Flat Rate

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES
Single Family Residential ‐ per unit 11,804 39,779 $1,905,248 $1,746,947 $1,516,201 $5,168,396 1,471,362 $3.51 $36.50Multifamily Residential ‐ per unit 656 7,675 674,105 618,096 536,455 1,828,656 520,590 3.51 19.90Trailer Park ‐ per space 263 1,178 103,484 94,886 82,353 280,722 79,917 3.51 19.90COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CLASSESCar Wash, Laundry, Packing House 23 $17,572 $6,445 $11,986 $36,002 13,570 $2.66 Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 13 10,383 7,616 9,443 27,443 8,019 3.43 Stores, Offices, Markets 695 385,775 212,234 263,144 861,153 297,922 2.90 Hospital, Rest Homes 27 12,779 11,718 5,811 30,308 9,869 3.08 Multi‐Unit with Cons 4 799 732 545 2,076 617 3.37Mortuaries 2 1,597 4,687 5,811 12,096 1,234 9.81Service Stations and Auto Repairs 63 43,929 29,001 55,934 128,864 33,925 3.80 Restaurants 98 52,715 154,671 143,830 351,216 40,710 8.63 Churches 61 47,124 25,925 32,144 105,193 36,392 2.90Schools 51 32,747 15,614 14,892 63,252 25,289 2.51City of Porterville 23 13,578 7,470 9,262 30,310 10,486 2.90 State Hospital 1 799 732 363 1,894 617 3.08Industrial ‐ per hcf 15 13,578 7,470 6,175 27,222 10,486 2.60Septic Tanks ‐ per 1,000 gallons 7 7,188 142,368 392,264 541,820 5,551 97.61 130.49 4,152
TOTALS 13,806 48,633 $3,323,400 $3,086,611 $3,086,611 $9,496,622 2,566,555Allocation percentages 35.0% 32.5% 32.5%Annual cost requirements $3,323,400 $3,086,611 $3,086,611 $9,496,622 City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Capital Costs Allocation
Customer Revenue Under 2028 Test Year
Classification Existing Rates Cost of Service Change

RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES
Single Family Residential ‐ per unit $3,806,082 $8,753,846 130.0% Multifamily Residential ‐ per unit 2,350,453 3,099,246 31.9% Trailer Park ‐ per space 360,824 475,773 31.9%RESIDENTIAL SUBTOTAL $6,517,359 $12,328,865 89.2%COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CLASSES Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House $13,027 $61,065 368.8% Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 9,783 46,508 375.4%
Stores, Offices, Markets 309,839 1,459,818 371.2%
Hospital, Rest Homes 10,757 51,319 377.1%
Multi‐Unit with Cons 734 3,516 379.0%Mortuaries 2,406 20,478 751.3%Service Stations and Auto Repairs 46,138 218,137 372.8% Restaurants 120,908 594,771 391.9%Churches 15,285 178,321 1066.7%Schools 7,587 107,227 1,313.3% City of Porterville 8,703 51,381 490.4%
State Hospital 672 3,207 377.1%COMMERCIAL SUBTOTAL $545,839 $2,795,749 412.2%Industrial ‐ per hcf $9,752 $46,138 373.1%Septic Tanks ‐ per 1,000 gallons $94,260 $917,058 872.9%Porter Vista $200,052 $448,488 124.2% TOTALS $7,367,262 $16,536,299 124.4%
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Rate Design: Alternative 1 Rates ‐ Existing Rate Structure Description Existing Rates 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/2028 5‐Year
Cumulative
Increase
Revenue Increase 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 124.2%RESIDENTIAL Single Family Residential ‐ per unit $26.87 $30.20 $39.95 $43.35 $47.00 $51.00 89.8% Multifamily Residential ‐ per unit 25.52 28.69 37.96 41.18 44.65 48.45 89.9% Trailer Park ‐ per space 25.52 28.69 37.96 41.18 44.65 48.45 89.9% COMMERCIAL ‐ per hcf
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House $0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8%Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4% Stores, Offices, Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%Hospital, Rest Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%Multi‐Unit with Cons 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0%Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3% Service Stations and Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8% Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4%State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1% Industrial ‐ per hcf $0.93 $2.60 $3.44 $3.74 $4.05 $4.40 373.1% Septic Tanks ‐ per 1,000 gallons $22.70 $130.50 $172.90 $187.60 $203.55 $220.85 872.9% REVENUE RECOVERED FROM RATES $7,167,210 $9,548,698 $12,632,662 $13,707,949 $14,863,322 $16,130,383 ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE $9,496,622 $12,583,023 $13,652,580 $14,813,050 $16,072,159 VARIANCE ‐ $ $52,077 $49,639 $55,369 $50,272 $58,224
VARIANCE ‐ % 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4%
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Rate Design: Alternative 2 Rates ‐ Cost of Service
Description Existing Rates 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/2028 5‐Year
Cumulative
Increase
Revenue Increase 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 124.2%RESIDENTIAL Single Family Residential ‐ per unit $26.87 $36.50 $48.35 $52.50 $56.95 $61.80 130.0% Multifamily Residential ‐ per unit 25.52 19.90 26.35 28.55 31.00 33.65 31.9% Trailer Park ‐ per space 25.52 19.90 26.35 28.55 31.00 33.65 31.9% COMMERCIAL ‐ per hcf
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House $0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8%Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4% Stores, Offices, Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%Hospital, Rest Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%Multi‐Unit with Cons 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0%Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3% Service Stations and Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8% Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4%State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1% Industrial ‐ per hcf $0.93 $2.60 $3.44 $3.74 $4.05 $4.40 373.1% Septic Tanks ‐ per 1,000 gallons $22.70 $130.50 $172.90 $187.60 $203.55 $220.85 872.9% REVENUE RECOVERED FROM RATES $7,167,210 $9,507,220 $12,589,044 $13,662,201 $14,822,526 $16,087,810 ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE $9,496,622 $12,583,023 $13,652,580 $14,813,050 $16,072,159 VARIANCE ‐ $ $10,598 $6,021 $9,621 $9,476 $15,651
VARIANCE ‐ % 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%
City of Porterville
2020 Sewer Rate Study
Rate Design: Alternative 3 Rates ‐ Residential Consolidation Description Existing Rates 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/2028 5‐Year
Cumulative
Increase
Revenue Increase 32.5% 32.5% 8.5% 8.5% 8.5% 124.2%RESIDENTIAL Single Family Residential ‐ per unit $26.87 $29.55 $39.10 $42.40 $46.00 $49.90 85.7% Multifamily Residential ‐ per unit 25.52 29.55 39.10 42.40 46.00 49.90 95.5% Trailer Park ‐ per space 25.52 29.55 39.10 42.40 46.00 49.90 95.5% COMMERCIAL ‐ per hcf
Car Wash, Laundry, Packing House $0.96 $2.66 $3.52 $3.82 $4.14 $4.50 368.8%Bars, Hotels w/o Dining 1.22 3.43 4.54 4.93 5.34 5.80 375.4% Stores, Offices, Markets 1.04 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 371.2%Hospital, Rest Homes 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1%Multi‐Unit with Cons 1.19 3.37 4.46 4.84 5.25 5.70 379.0%Mortuaries 1.95 9.81 13.00 14.10 15.30 16.60 751.3% Service Stations and Auto Repairs 1.36 3.80 5.04 5.47 5.93 6.43 372.8% Restaurants 2.97 8.63 11.44 12.41 13.46 14.61 391.9%
Churches 0.42 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 1,066.7%
Schools 0.30 2.51 3.32 3.60 3.91 4.24 1,313.3%
City of Porterville 0.83 2.90 3.83 4.16 4.51 4.90 490.4%State Hospital 1.09 3.08 4.07 4.42 4.80 5.20 377.1% Industrial ‐ per hcf $0.93 $2.60 $3.44 $3.74 $4.05 $4.40 335.5% Septic Tanks ‐ per 1,000 gallons $22.70 $130.50 $172.90 $187.60 $203.55 $220.85 796.7% REVENUE RECOVERED FROM RATES $7,167,210 $9,547,994 $12,633,376 $13,702,998 $14,865,100 $16,128,620 ACTUAL COST OF SERVICE $9,496,622 $12,583,023 $13,652,580 $14,813,050 $16,072,159 VARIANCE ‐ $ $51,373 $50,353 $50,418 $52,050 $56,461
VARIANCE ‐ % 0.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4%

SUBMITTED TO:

City of Porterville, CA
February 18, 2023
Final Report:

Solid Waste Rate Study and Financial Plan
Pages Printed on 100% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper

Table of
Contents
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report TOC - i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .................................................................................. 1 2 Objectives ............................................ ……………………………………….1 3 Summary Findings ......................................................................... 2 4 Related Issues ............................................................................... 2 Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review ............................ 2 Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis .................................................... 4 Recommended Approach Going Forward ........................................... 5 5 Detailed Findings ................................. ……………………………………….5 6 Rate Model Design .. ……………………………………………………………………9
7 Rate Adjustment Scenarios ......................................................... 11 8 Rate Survey ................................................................................. 12 Tables
1 High Level Cost Estimates - Operational Improvements ................................. 8 2 High Level Cost Estimates - SB 1383 Compliance ............................................ 9 3 Summary Rate Adjustment Scenarios ........................................................... 12 4 Residential Rate Survey 50% Rate Increase ................................................... 13 Attachments
1 Scenario #1 - No Rate Adjustment
2 Scenario #2 - 7/1/23 50% + 5% annually thereafter
3 Scenario #3 - 7/1/23 30% + 7/1/24 25% + 5% annually thereafter 4 Scenario #4 - 7/1/23 25% + 7/1/24 25% + 7/1/25 10% + 5% annually thereafter
5 Commercial Rate Survey 50% Rate Increase
Table of
Contents
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report TOC - ii
This page intentionally left blank.

Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

1 Introduction
R3 Consulting Group (R3) was initially engaged by the City of Porterville (City) to conduct a Solid Waste Study that involved the following major tasks:

1. Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review - Evaluating how the Field Services Division (Division) currently provides solid waste services, and making recommendations for improving the overall performance of the City’s municipal solid waste management system;

2. Technology Review - Assessing a range of technologies for potential use by the Division, including: RFID tags; smartphone mobile applications; and upgraded field communications systems;

3. Rate Study and Financial Plan - Developing an Excel-based Rate Model / Financial Plan to be used to project the Division’s costs over a 10 year planning period accounting for, among other things, timely vehicle replacement and other future capital costs;

4. Jurisdictional Rate Survey - Comparing the City’s solid waste rates to those of other cities in the greater San Joaquin Valley;

5. Solid Waste Vehicle Impact Fee – Quantifying a fee that could be charged to the Division for that portion of the City’s street maintenance costs associated with damage caused by the Division’s solid waste vehicles; and

6. Proposition 218 Hearing - Supporting the City’s compliance with Proposition 218 requirements.

The work scope was subsequently amended to include:

7. SB 1383 Compliance Services - Assisting the City with various tasks in support of its compliance with SB 1383, which becomes effective January 1, 2022; and

8. Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis - Evaluating the potential for privatizing the City’s municipal solid waste collection operations.

This document focuses on the Task 3 - Rate Study and Financial Plan and Task 4 - Jurisdictional Survey tasks. Project Objectives are provided, followed by our Summary Findings, Related Issues, Detailed Findings, a description of the Rate Model Design, Rate Adjustment Scenarios, and the results of the Jurisdictional Rate Survey. We have also included in Section 3 Related Issues, a summary of the Task 1 - Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review and Task 8 - Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis preliminary findings. Those findings are presented to help frame and inform the Financial Plan findings and the various rate adjustment scenarios that are presented.
2 Project Objectives
 Develop an Excel-based Rate Model to project Division costs over a ten (10) year planning period, and use that Rate Model to develop a 5-Year rate adjustment plan Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

that provides sufficient revenues to cover required capital and operating costs, while maintaining sufficient financial reserves (i.e., Financial Plan); and  Conduct a Rate Survey up to ten (10) municipalities within the greater San Joaquin Valley region to be used as a comparative benchmark for existing rates and proposed rates developed from the rate study.
3 Summary Findings
The City’s solid waste rates have not been increased since 2006 and are among the lowest if not the lowest in the region. Those rates however are not sufficient to support the Division’s current operations as a budget shortfall of approximately $145,000 (2%) is projected for fiscal year (FY) 22-23. In addition, significant additional revenues are needed to:
 Replace vehicles that are old and past their planned replacement date;  Fund capital improvement costs for the Division’s recycling and green waste transfer stations, and administration and maintenance facilities;  Improve the Division’s operations and supporting resources to bring them in line with industry standards;
 Comply with SB 1383; and
 Maintain prudent operating reserves.

To meet those financial needs, a rate increase on the order of 50% is projected to be required.

Even with such a large increase, the City’s residential rate would still be lower than the average rate of the various jurisdictions in the region that were included in the Section 8 - Rate Survey.

Section 7 of this report provides various rate adjustment scenarios for the City’s consideration. 4 Related Issues
R3 has completed the Task 1 - Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review and Task 8 - Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis for the City. The findings from those two tasks are provided below. The findings of the Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review impact the Division’s expenses and, as such, the Rate Study and Financial Plan rate modeling and rate adjustment scenarios. It is therefore important to understand those impacts. The findings of the Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis do not directly impact the current rate modeling and rate adjustment scenarios but do provide information about that option for the City’s consideration.

4.1 Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review
Overall Assessment of Performance
The Division is doing a good job with available resources however, those resources are not adequate to support an operation that is in line with industry standards for safety, customer service, and operational performance. Staff appear to be dedicated and qualified but significant advancements in the industry over the past 20 years covering all aspects of collection operations have largely not been incorporated into the Division’s operations. If the Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

Division is to operate to industry standards, not only is a significant investment needed, but there needs to be a complete systematic revamping of how the Division’s operations and services are structured, operated, and managed. That includes perhaps most notably establishing clear objective performance standards, providing regular associated operational and safety training, and the daily collection and analysis of key operational data to support effective and efficient operations and continuous improvement.

Outsourcing Impact - Many of the Division’s collection vehicles are old and need to be replaced. Their purchase should be made according to the Division’s vehicle replacement schedule and not be delayed. Should the City subsequently decide to outsource its operations, all of the Division’s vehicles and equipment, and any remaining capital debt could be required to be assumed by the selected private operator.

SB 1383 Required Programs
To comply with SB 1383, the Division needs to expand its current commercial recycling and organics collection services to most if not all commercial accounts. It also needs to provide for the collection of residential food waste and other organics through its current residential yard waste collection program. In addition, the City needs to establish a residential and commercial SB 1383 inspection and enforcement program, develop a commercial edible food recovery program, and track and report required information to CalRecycle, among other things. All of which requires additional funding.

Outsourcing Impact - If the City outsourced municipal operations, many but not all of the City’s SB 1383 requirements and responsibilities could be transferred to the franchised hauler, although the City would retain responsibility for ensuring regulatory compliance.

Same Day Residential Collection Services
The Division provides weekly collection of residential trash, recyclables, and green waste Monday through Friday. The City is divided into four (4) zones with collection services for each of the three commodities scheduled for different days within each collection zone. Under this type of “districted” system routes are distributed throughout the City on any given day.

The industry standard is to provide all residential collection services on the same day, with routes typically “sweeping” across the service area over the course of one week. That type of collection system structure is the most common and has a number of benefits. Those benefits include allowing for more efficient route supervision, and route support to cover open routes or assist with heavy workloads as all routes are in the same area each day. Some residents may also find that placing all carts out for service on the same day is preferrable to having to place separate carts out for service on three separate days. Neighborhood esthetics may also improve as the presence of carts and associated truck traffic is limited to one day per week.

As part of our review, R3 was asked to assess the potential for switching from the current multiple day collection service to same day residential service. Division management reported that it is not opposed to switching to same day service but highlighted related issues and concerns, including that on street parking and tight cul-de-sacs may make it difficult for all three (3) carts to be positioned so that the collection vehicles can access the carts.

Management considers switching to single day service to be a significant operational challenge, which it is, and management is appropriately cautious. With that said, same day service appears feasible based on our high level review. It may however require a separate Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

route for hard to service accounts (e.g., those in tight cul-de-sacs) and will require sufficient planning, public education and outreach. A complete system reroute will also require electronic account mapping capacity, and dedicated staff and/or consultant resources.

Outsourcing Impact - If the City decided to outsource its operations, it could require the selected contractor to provide same day service and manage the transition process from the current districted system.

4.2 Privatization / Outsourcing Analysis
 Municipal Versus Outsourced Operations in California - Of the more than 500 incorporated cities and counties in California the vast majority contract with the private sector for some or all solid waste management services through exclusive and/or nonexclusive franchise systems. There are currently less than 50 municipal operated solid waste management collection systems in the State, with many/most of those operations in the Central Valley.
 Advantages/Responsibilities of Municipal Operations - Perhaps the greatest advantage of municipal operations is the direct control that the jurisdiction has over its solid waste management system. With that total control, however, also comes the jurisdiction’s total responsibility for the safety of those operations, and the operational, financial, and regulatory compliance aspects of those operations.
 Challenges/Disadvantages of Municipal Operations - One of the greatest challenges / disadvantages of municipal operations, as compared to private sector services, is the lack of economies of scale and supporting corporate resources. Municipal operations also typically lack direct control over key fundamental support services, including vehicle maintenance, customer service, and billing. Additionally, City Council goals and objectives (e.g., minimize rate impacts to residents) may not always align with the operational and financial needs of solid waste management operations, which are ever increasing in large part due to unfunded state mandates.
 Required Franchise Fee If Operations are Outsourced - Should the City decide to outsource operations not all related costs would go away, including staffing to manage the private operator’s performance and other contract requirements. Those costs that would remain with the City are projected to be on the order of $750,000 annually. That does not include any Division pension or other liabilities that would remain with the City. To fund those costs it is expected that the City would establish a franchise fee. Franchise fees on the order of 10% (or more) of gross revenues are common in the industry. As a point of reference, at projected annual revenues on the order of $10 million a 10% franchise fee would generate $1 million annually, enough to cover the projected costs that would remain with a little left over.
 Value of City’s Solid Waste Collection System to the Private Sector - The City’s solid waste collection system (franchise) is a valuable commodity. Over a 10-year term, total revenues are expected to be on the order of $100 million and more than double that over a 20-year term.
 Outsourcing Case Studies - Two outsourced municipal collection operations that we are aware of, in the City of Hemet in 2011, and the City of San Bernardino in 2016, both resulted in significant revenue to each city with no initial rate increase. Should the City Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

decide to outsource its operations, it could require certain payments from the private sector operator, in addition to franchise fees, provided those payments were legally defendable. Increased payments to the City would translate into increased rates for the private hauler.
 Benefits of Outsourcing - In addition to any potential financial benefits, benefits of outsourcing include the ability to place many of the responsibilities for complying with AB 341, AB 1826 and SB 1383 on the contracted hauler. Outsourcing also removes any additional pension liability the City might incur with continued municipal operations.  Outsourcing Impact on Displaced Employees - Consideration of outsourcing needs to consider the impact on Division staff that would be displaced. If the City were to outsource its operations, we recommend that it require the selected contractor to offer employment to all qualified displaced City employees, provide medical and dental coverage, provide a matching 401K retirement program, maintain the former City employees’ seniority levels, and honor all existing prescheduled vacation time. The City might also consider requiring a transition payment or bonus to displaced employees similar to the transition payments the cities of Hemet and San Bernardino received for their displaced employees when they outsourced municipal services.
 Outsourcing Financial Goals - Should the City decide to outsource operations, a minimum City objective could be the ability to cover all City solid waste management costs, including contract management, and any associated pension or other liabilities through franchised hauler payments to the City without raising rates. To the extent that additional legally defendable City revenues (contractor fee payments) could be generated without raising rates, the financial benefit of outsourcing would improve.

4.3 Recommended Approach Going Forward
From an operational and financial position we suggest that the City move forward as if it will continue to provide municipal services, which it will at least for a year or more even if it should decide to outsource services. Much of what the City puts into the Division’s operations going forward will transfer to a private operator if those operations were outsourced. The private operator can be required to purchase all of the City’s vehicles, equipment, and other specified assets, and offer employment to all qualified displaced Division employees. To a large degree outsourcing simply changes who is responsible for providing and managing collection services; shifting that responsibility from the City to the private hauler. Many other system components, including drivers, route supervisors, vehicles and rates may change very little. 5 Detailed Findings

1. Solid Waste Fund - The City’s solid waste fund is a self-sustaining Enterprise Fund that was established to account for revenues and expenditures associated with the City’s solid waste management system, street sweeping, graffiti removal, and household hazardous waste. The FY 22-23 budgeted expenses are $6.70 million.

The Solid Waste Fund has an operating reserve, which contains the unrestricted fund balance. As a general rule of thumb, an operating reserve of 15% - 25% is a common target operating reserve fund balance, providing a "rainy day savings account" for unexpected Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

cash flow shortages, expense or unforeseen liabilities. The Division has fiscal year ending (FYE) 22-23 projected operating reserves of approximately $711,000, or roughly 11% of annual operating expenses, versus a proposed target of 15% - 25%.

In addition, the Solid Waste Fund has two separate reserve funds:

Note: The Division has established a Solid Waste Capital Reserve Fund for funding capital projects as well as equipment replacement. The total available balance for that fund at the beginning of FY 22-23 was approximately $6.7 million. For purposes of tracking capital project expenses separate from equipment replacement expenses we have established a separate Solid Waste Equipment Replacement Fund and assigned $4.0 million of the total $6.7 million beginning FY 22-23 reserve to that Solid Waste Equipment Replacement Fund, with the remaining $2.6 million assigned to the Capital Reserve Fund. a. Solid Waste Capital Reserve Fund - The City established the Solid Waste Capital Reserve Fund in FY 01-02 as a reserve for capital expansion. The FY 22-23 budget provides funding in the amount of $760,000 for the following projects:
 Corporation yard parking lot rehabilitation - $60,000  Transfer station concrete pad (green waste) - $250,000  Transfer station cover - $150,000
 Transfer station scales - $300,000
Additional the Rate Model accounts for expenses of $200,000 annually, starting in FY 23-24 to support further improvements to the recycling and green waste transfer stations.

The Rate Model also provides an additional $200,000 in annual funding starting in FY 23-24 to fund the following capital expenses:
 Office expansion - $1,000,000
 Maintenance facility expansion - $1,000,000
The following one-time expenses totaling $495,000 for FY 23-24 are also included in the Rate Model:
 Customer relations management (CRM) system - $400,000  Safety program development / implementation - $50,000  Recovered organic material product procurement program development costs - $25,000
 Edible food recovery program implementation costs - $20,000 b. Solid Waste Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund - The Division’s Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund is used to fund the purchase of collection vehicles and other equipment. The Fund had a FYE 21-22 balance of $4.0 million. That balance is projected to decrease to $2.8 million at the end of this FY (22-23) as a result of the planned purchase of three (3) residential side loaders and two (2) commercial Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

front loaders. All of the vehicles planned to be replaced this FY are old and past their scheduled replacement date.

The Equipment reserve Fund is budgeted to receive $833,000 in revenue from Interdepartmental Service Charges in FY 22-23. A similar level of ongoing funding is assumed over the 10-year planning period, with 3.0% annual adjustments for inflation. Vehicle replacement costs are projected to average approximately $1.1 million annually over the 10-year planning period, and cart and container replacement costs are projected to average approximately $400,000 annually.

2. Franchise Fees / Street Maintenance Fees - The Solid Waste Fund is charged “franchise fees” that are used to fund street maintenance costs associated with the impact of solid waste vehicles on the City’s streets. For FY 22-23 the total budgeted Franchise Fee expense is approximately $336,000.

3. Overall Assessment - The City’s Solid Waste Fund has not had a rate increase since 2006 and it is in need of significant additional revenues to:
 Replace many of its existing vehicles over the next 5 years at an average annual cost of $1.5 million;
 Secure additional management and operational staff and other resources needed to bring its operations in line with industry standards (estimated at $548,000 annually) (see #5 below); and
 Take actions necessary to comply with SB 1383, which became effective on January 1, 2022 (estimated at $1.2 million annually) (see #6 below).

A rate increase on the order of 50% would bring FY 22-23 projected revenues in line with expenses (i.e., eliminate the current $145,000 FY 22-23 projected shortfall), and assuming 5% annual rate increases thereafter, meet projected Solid Waste Fund capital and operating needs over the next five years. This would increase the monthly residential rate by $8.93, from $17.85 to $26.78. Section 7 below provides a discussion of various Rate Adjustment Scenarios.

4. The City’s Rate are Among the Lowest in the Region - While significant rate increases are projected to be required to address the above financial requirements, the City’s current residential rates are among the lowest, if not the lowest in the region. The City’s current commercial rates also generally compare favorably to other rates in the region. Even with a 50% rate increase the City’s residential and commercial rates would be well within the range of rates in the region. See Section 8 - Jurisdictional Rate Survey below for a more detailed comparison of the City’s residential and commercial rates to those of other jurisdictions in the region.

5. Additional Staffing, Vehicles and Other Resources Needed to Support Operations that are Consistent with the Industry Standard - Table 1 provides a projection of one-time and ongoing annual City costs for the additional resources recommended to support operations that are in line with industry standards for safety, customer service, and operational performance. As shown, one-time costs are projected at $450,000, with ongoing annual costs at $548,000 annually (8% of current expenses).

6. The City’s Rates Have Not Increased Since 2006 - Since that time the consumer price index Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

(West Urban) has increased 51% and the Water Sewer Trash index, which arguable is more representative of the change in solid waste related costs than the CPI, has doubled (i.e., increased 100%).

7. The Solid Waste Division will Have Additional New Expenses Related to SB 1383 Compliance - Table 2 provides a projection of one-time and ongoing annual City costs required to comply with SB 1383. As shown, one-time costs are projected at $45,000, with ongoing annual costs at $1.2 million annually (18% of current expenses).

8. Commercial Organic Material Collection Rates - The City currently sets its commercial organic rates the same as its commercial recycling rates. Under SB 1383 we suggest the City review both its commercial recycling and organic rates and consider setting “bundled” solid waste rates that include a minimum level for both recycling (e.g., 95-gallons) and organic (e.g., 65-gallon) service. We also recommend that the City review the rates for recycling and organic services in excess of any such minimum levels with consideration for the cost of those additional service levels.

9. Cost of Service Rates - The City’s residential and commercial solid waste collection systems are expected to change significantly over the next several years as the City implements required programs and services necessary for it to comply with SB 1383. Once those systems have stabilized the City may want to update its Rate Model, and at the same time conduct a cost of service rate analysis. A cost of service analysis would separately identify the costs and revenues associated with residential, commercial, roll-off and street sweeping services. Based on that information, the City could establish residential, commercial, and roll-off “cost of service” rates that reflect the actual cost of those services, without any surpluses or subsidies among the different services, should it wish to do so.

Table 1
One-Time Ongoing
One (1) Supervisor $80,000
One (1) Route (Truck-Driver-O&M) $150,000
Overtime Savings -$42,000
One (1) Data Analyst $90,000
Develop/Implement Safety Program $50,000 $50,000
Customer Database Software/Program $400,000 $120,000
Operational Consulting Services $100,000
Totals $450,000 $548,000
FY 22-23 Expenses $6,700,000
% of Expenses 8%
High-Level Cost Estimates - Operational Improvement
Required Resource
Cost
Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

Table 2
6 Rate Model Design
The “Rate Model” that was developed is designed to project revenues and expenses for the Division over a 10-year planning period. The Rate Model consists of the following work sheets, which are described in more detail below:

1. Rate Model Summary (RM 1)

2. Revenues (RM 2)

3. Expenses (RM 3)

4. Capital Reserve Fund (RM 4)

5. Equipment Replacement Fund (RM 5)
Rate Model Summary (RM 1)
Rate Model Summary (RM 1) is used to input all revenue and expense annual percentage adjustments in the Rate Model and provides key summary financial data over the planning period. The upper portion is the Summary Results area which provides a summary of critical financial data based on the established revenue and expense adjustments, or as may otherwise be adjusted (overridden) on (RM 2) and (RM 3). The lower portions are the Revenue One-Time Ongoing
Organics Processing $520,000
Procurement Requirements $25,000 $56,000
SB 1383 Program Coordinator $95,000
One (1) Code Enforcement Officer $83,000
One (1) Organics Route (truck-driver-O&M) $150,000
One (1) Recycling Route (truck-driver-O&M) $150,000
Organics Processing $52,000
Edible Food Waste Recovery $20,000 $100,000
One (1) Code Enforcement Officer covered above
Totals $45,000 $1,206,000
FY 22-23 Expenses $6,700,000
% of Expenses 18%
High-Level Cost Estimates - SB 1383 Compliance
Required Resource
Cost
Residential
Commercial
Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

Adjustments area (including rate revenue and non-rate revenue) and Expense Adjustments area. All revenue and expense adjustments should be entered in these applicable sections.

Revenues (RM 2)
This worksheet provides the Division’s FY 22-22 revenues, and projects those revenues out over the planning period based on the percentage adjustments listed on (RM 1), or as overridden on this sheet.

The Division’s budget includes both rate revenues (i.e., revenues from charges to customers for solid waste, recycling and organic collection services), and non-rate revenues.

Rate revenues are billed, tracked, and reported for each of the Division’s 3 major lines of business:

1. Residential Refuse Charges

2. Commercial Refuse Charges

3. Roll-Off Refuse Charges
Non-rate revenues include Recycling Revenues (recyclable material sales revenue), State Grants, Interest on Investments and Penalties.

Expenses (RM 3)
This worksheet provides the Division’s FY 22-23 expenses, and projects those expenses out over the planning period based on the expense percentage adjustments listed on (RM 1), or as overridden on this sheet.
(RM 3) mirrors the structure of the Division’s budget, which tracks and projects expenses for each of the following six (6) operations:

1. Refuse Collection and Disposal (residential, commercial, roll-off solid waste collection)

2. Green Waste

3. Street Sweeping

4. Curbside Recyclables Collection (residential recycling)

5. Recyclable Waste (commercial recycling)

6. Graffiti Removal (currently contracted to a non-profit) (RM 3) is supported by the following two (2) worksheets:
 3A - Ops Improvement Costs - Recommended expenses to support operations that are in line with industry standards; and
 3B - SB 1383 Compliance Costs - Projected expenses related to SB 1383 compliance requirements.

Capital Reserve Fund (RM 4)
As discussed above, the City established the Solid Waste Capital Reserve Fund in FY 01-02 as a reserve for capital expansion. Revenues flowing into the Capital Reserve Fund are shown along with planned expenses, and the associated fiscal year beginning and ending reserve balance. (RM 4) provides for transfers (funding) from the Solid Waste Fund to support the identified capital costs (Row 14).

Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

Equipment Replacement Fund (RM 5)
The Division’s Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund is used to fund collection vehicles and other equipment, including residential and commercial cart and container replacements.

Revenues flowing into the Equipment Replacement Fund are shown along with planned expenses, and the associated fiscal year beginning and ending reserve balance. (RM 5) provides for:
 Interdepartmental Service Charges (Row 12, which come from the Solid Waste Fund as currently budgeted; and
 Additional transfers (funding) from the Solid Waste Fund to support the identified capital costs (Row 15.

This worksheet is supported by RM 5A - Equipment Replacement Schedule, which provides the equipment replacement schedule that drives the required vehicle expenses. 7 Rate Adjustment Scenarios
The Division is faced with a number of significant challenges that require financial support and a significant rate increase is required to support the Division’s necessary capital and operating expenses. For planning purposes we prepared the following five year rate adjustment scenarios for the City’s consideration:
 Scenario 1- No rate adjustment (Attachment 1);
 Scenario 2 – A 50% rate increase effective July 1, 2023 followed by 5% rate increases each of the next four (4) years through FY 27-28 (Attachment 2);  Scenario 3 – 30% rate increase effective July 1, 2023 followed by a 25% rate increase on July 1, 2024, followed by 5% rate increases each of the following three (3) years through FY 27-28 (Attachment 3); and
 Scenario 4 - 25% rate increase effective July 1, 2023 followed by a 25% rate increase on July 1, 2024, followed by 10% rate increase on July 1, 2025, followed by 5% rate increases each of the following two years (2) years through FY 27-28 (Attachment 4).

Each of the above rate adjustment scenarios results in projected operating reserves equivalent to 18% or more of operating reserves at the end of FY 27-28. However, lowering the initial July 1, 2023 rate adjustment under Scenarios 3 and Scenario 4 would result in negative operating reserves in FY 23-24. With that said, in both of those cases the Division’s other reserve fund balances (Capital Reserve Fund and Equipment Replacement Fund) are projected to sufficient to cover those revenue shortfalls, if needed.

Table 3 provides a summary of each of the four (4) rate adjustment scenarios showing the associated FYE operating reserve balances, FYE balance of the other reserve funds (Capital Reserve and Equipment Replacement Reserve), and the associated residential rate.

Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

Table 3
8 Rate Survey
The City has not increased rates since July 1, 2006. Table 4 below provide a comparison of the City’s residential rates to the surveyed jurisdictions, assuming a 50% rate increase effective July 1, 2023 (Scenario 1). As shown, the City’s current residential rates are the lowest of the jurisdictions surveyed. Even with a 50% July 1, 2023 rate increase, the City’s monthly residential rate would still more than $1.00 per month (4%) less than the average rate of the jurisdictions surveyed.

Note: it is expected that some if not many of the rates for the other jurisdictions shown in Table 4 will need to be increased to provide funding for SB 1383 requirements, which would make the City’s rates more favorable in comparison.

Attachment 6 provides a comparison of the City’s commercial rates to those of the jurisdictions surveyed based on a 50% rate increase. As shown, the City’s current commercial trash, recycling, and organics rates are significantly lower than the average rate of the surveyed jurisdictions. With a 50% rate increase the City’s commercial trash rates for the identified service levels range from 32% lower to 1% higher than the average, the commercial recycling FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28
Rate Adjustment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0%
FYE Operating Reserves 710,905 $ (2,323,011) $ $ (5,796,390) $ (9,731,206) $ (14,150,530) $ (19,078,588) FYE Other Reserves 4,667,941 $ $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 Residential Rate 17.85 $ $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 Average Regional Rate 27.81 $
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28
Rate Adjustment 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 82%
FYE Operating Reserves 710,905 $ $ 944,274 $ 1,228,273 $ 1,565,432 $ 1,958,410 $ 2,409,998 Percent of Expenditures 11% 10% 12% 15% 18% 21%
FYE Other Reserves 4,667,941 $ $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 Residential Rate 17.85 $ $ 26.78 $ 28.11 $ 29.52 $ 31.00 $ 32.55 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28
Rate Adjustment 0.0% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 88%
FYE Operating Reserves $ 710,905 $ (362,640) $ 248,087 $ 928,311 $ 1,681,508 $ 2,511,325 Percent of Expenditures 11% -4% 2% 9% 15% 22%
FYE Other Reserves 4,667,941 $ $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 Residential Rate 17.85 $ $ 23.21 $ 29.01 $ 30.46 $ 31.98 $ 33.58 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28
Rate Adjustment 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 89%
FYE Operating Reserves 710,905 $ $ (689,368) $ (487,052) $ 274,854 $ 1,113,817 $ 2,033,688 Percent of Expenditures 11% -7% -5% 3% 10% 18%
FYE Other Reserves 4,667,941 $ $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 Residential Rate 17.85 $ $ 22.31 $ 27.89 $ 30.68 $ 32.21 $ 33.82 Cumulative
Rate Increase
Cumulative
Rate Increase
Cumulative
Rate Increase
Cumulative
Rate Increase
Scenario 1
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 2
Rate Study
and Financial
Plan
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE RATE STUDY AND FINANCIAL PLAN| Final Report

rate ranges from the same as the average (0% difference) to 28% higher than the average, and the commercial organics rates range from 33% lower to 4% higher than the average.

Table 4
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5 - Financial Model/FY 22-23 Financial Model/Report/City of Porterville - FINANCIAL PLAN 021823.docx Jurisdiction County Population Hauler Effective Date Curbside Recycling Green Waste
Monthly
Rate
(1)
Porterville Tulare 59,655 Municipal 7/1/2006 Weekly Weekly 17.85 $ Exeter Tulare 11,030 Mid-Valley 1/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 21.26 $ Farmersville Tulare 11,399 Mid-Valley 2020 Weekly Weekly 22.63 $ Madera Madera 65,415 Mid Valley 7/1/2013 Weekly Weekly 23.22 $ Visalia Tulare 138,649 Municipal 7/2/2013 Weekly Weekly 23.85 $ Woodlake Tulare 7,773 Mid-Valley 1/1/2019 Weekly Weekly 24.45 $ Hanford Kings 59,349 Municipal 7/1/2018 Weekly Weekly 25.20 $ Tulare Tulare 67,834 Municipal 7/1/2021 Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly 25.53 $ Fresno Fresno 545,769 Municipal 7/1/2021 Weekly Weekly 25.35 $ Bakersfield Kern 392,756 Municipal 7/1/2016 Weekly Weekly 25.49 $ Lindsay Tulare 13,154 Mid-Valley 7/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 25.79 $ Chowchilla Madera 18,196 Mid Valley 7/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 26.63 $ Sanger Fresno 27,185 Mid Valley 2011-2012 Weekly Weekly 27.57 $ Coalinga Fresno 17,199 Mid Valley 7/1/2019 Weekly Weekly 28.01 $ Wasco Kern 27,193 Municipal 1/1/2016 Not Provided Weekly 28.12 $ Selma Fresno 24,436 WMI 2013-2014 Weekly Weekly 28.60 $ Dinuba Tulare 25,994 Pena 7/1/2018 Weekly Weekly 29.53 $ Clovis Fresno 119,175 Allied 7/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 35.17 $ Reedley Fresno 25,917 Municipal 4/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 37.89 $ Merced Merced 88,120 Municipal 7/1/2020 Weekly Weekly 44.49 $ $ 27.83
$ 17.85
$ (9.98)
-56%
Porterville SB 1383 Rate @ 50.0% $ 26.78
$ (1.06)
-4%
Porterville SB 1383 Rate vs. Average Rate
(1) The City's month rate incluces street sweeping. Some of the comparative rates incude and others do not include
street sweeping.

Porterville Rate vs. Average
Average
Porterville Rate
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51

B C D E F G H I J K L
CITY OF PORTERVILLE Prepared by R3 Consulting Group
SOLID WASTE RATE MODEL Rate Model Summary (RM 1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32

SUMMARY RESULTS
Budget (City
Data)
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue 6,555,353 $ 6,555,353 $ 6,555,353 $ 6,555,353 $ 6,555,353 $ 6,555,353 $ 6,882,082 $ 7,225,146 $ 7,585,365 $ 7,963,594 $ Expenditures 6,700,256 $ 9,589,269 $ 10,028,732 $ 10,490,169 $ 10,974,677 $ 11,483,411 $ 11,517,582 $ 12,078,461 $ 12,667,384 $ 13,285,753 $ Overall Surplus/(Shortfall) (144,903) $ (3,033,916) $ (3,473,379) $ (3,934,816) $ (4,419,324) $ (4,928,058) $ (4,635,500) $ (4,853,314) $ (5,082,019) $ (5,322,159) $ as % of Total Expenditures -2% -32% -35% -38% -40% -43% -40% -40% -40% -40% Current Residential Rate = $17.85 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Monthly Residential Rate 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 17.85 $ 18.74 $ 19.68 $ 20.66 $ 21.70 $ Change $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0.89 $ 0.94 $ 0.98 $ 1.03 $ Cumulative Change % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 16% 22%
Annual Change % 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Operating Reserve
Beginning of FY (July 1) 855,808 $ 710,905 $ (2,323,011) $ (5,796,390) $ (9,731,206) $ (14,150,530) $ (19,078,588) $ (23,714,089) $ (28,567,403) $ (33,649,422) $ End of FY (June 30) 710,905 $ (2,323,011) $ (5,796,390) $ (9,731,206) $ (14,150,530) $ (19,078,588) $ (23,714,089) $ (28,567,403) $ (33,649,422) $ (38,971,582) $ % of Expenditures 11% -24% -58% -93% -129% -166% -206% -237% -266% -293% Months of Expenditures 1.3 -2.9 -6.9 -11.1 -15.5 -19.9 -24.7 -28.4 -31.9 -35.2 Other Reserve Fund FYE Balances FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Capital Reserve Fund (FYE) 1,904,193 $ 1,309,193 $ 1,203,193 $ 1,091,013 $ 972,468 $ 847,366 $ 715,511 $ 576,701 $ 430,726 $ 277,372 $ Equipment Replacement Fund (FYE) 2,763,748 $ 569,068 $ (115,102) $ (179,162) $ (851,035) $ 180,847 $ 460,023 $ (174,831) $ 121,348 $ 719,985 $ Total (FYE) 4,667,941 $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 $ 1,175,534 $ 401,870 $ 552,073 $ 997,357 $

REVENUE AND EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS
RATE ADJUSTMENT TIMING INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Rate Adjustment Effective Date July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st Note: All fiscal years begin July 1st, and the default rate adjustment date is July 1st. Any later rate adjustment date will result in decreased rate revenues for the projected fiscal year.

RATE/REVENUE ADJUSTMENT INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Revenue Category Note: These percentages may be overridden for specific expenditure line items on page RM2.

Fees & Grants 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Use of Money & Property 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Commercial Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Roll-Off Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Recycling Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers from Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Actual Overall Revenue Adjustment 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% User-Overridden Revenue Adjustments on RM2? None None None None None None None None None User-Overridden Projected Revenue on RM2? Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1

CELL DATA SOURCES
User Input Calculated Surplus
Calculated Value Calculated Shortfall
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5 - Financial Model/FY 22-23 Financial Model/Porterville FY 22-23 Rate Model 020723.xlsx / RM #1 - Porterville Summary 2/7/2023
Attachment 1
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51

B C D E F G H I J K L
CITY OF PORTERVILLE Prepared by R3 Consulting Group
SOLID WASTE RATE MODEL Rate Model Summary (RM 1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32

SUMMARY RESULTS
Budget (City
Data)
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue 6,555,353 $ 9,822,638 $ 10,312,731 $ 10,827,328 $ 11,367,655 $ 11,934,999 $ 12,530,710 $ 13,156,206 $ 13,812,977 $ 14,502,587 $ Expenditures 6,700,256 $ 9,589,269 $ 10,028,732 $ 10,490,169 $ 10,974,677 $ 11,483,411 $ 11,517,582 $ 12,078,461 $ 12,667,384 $ 13,285,753 $ Overall Surplus/(Shortfall) (144,903) $ 233,369 $ 283,999 $ 337,159 $ 392,978 $ 451,588 $ 1,013,128 $ 1,077,745 $ 1,145,593 $ 1,216,834 $ as % of Total Expenditures -2% 2% 3% 3% 4% 4% 9% 9% 9% 9% Current Residential Rate = $17.85 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Monthly Residential Rate 17.85 $ 26.78 $ 28.11 $ 29.52 $ 31.00 $ 32.55 $ 34.17 $ 35.88 $ 37.68 $ 39.56 $ Change $ - $ 8.93 $ 1.34 $ 1.41 $ 1.48 $ 1.55 $ 1.63 $ 1.71 $ 1.79 $ 1.88 $ Cumulative Change % 0% 50% 58% 65% 74% 82% 91% 101% 111% 122% Annual Change % 0% 50% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Operating Reserve
Beginning of FY (July 1) 855,808 $ 710,905 $ 944,274 $ 1,228,273 $ 1,565,432 $ 1,958,410 $ 2,409,998 $ 3,423,126 $ 4,500,871 $ 5,646,465 $ End of FY (June 30) 710,905 $ 944,274 $ 1,228,273 $ 1,565,432 $ 1,958,410 $ 2,409,998 $ 3,423,126 $ 4,500,871 $ 5,646,465 $ 6,863,299 $ % of Expenditures 11% 10% 12% 15% 18% 21% 30% 37% 45% 52% Months of Expenditures 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.5 3.6 4.5 5.3 6.2 Other Reserve Fund FYE Balances FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Capital Reserve Fund (FYE) 1,904,193 $ 1,309,193 $ 1,203,193 $ 1,091,013 $ 972,468 $ 847,366 $ 715,511 $ 576,701 $ 430,726 $ 277,372 $ Equipment Replacement Fund (FYE) 2,763,748 $ 569,068 $ (115,102) $ (179,162) $ (851,035) $ 180,847 $ 460,023 $ (174,831) $ 121,348 $ 719,985 $ Total (FYE) 4,667,941 $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 $ 1,175,534 $ 401,870 $ 552,073 $ 997,357 $

REVENUE AND EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS
RATE ADJUSTMENT TIMING INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Rate Adjustment Effective Date July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st Note: All fiscal years begin July 1st, and the default rate adjustment date is July 1st. Any later rate adjustment date will result in decreased rate revenues for the projected fiscal year.

RATE/REVENUE ADJUSTMENT INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Revenue Category Note: These percentages may be overridden for specific expenditure line items on page RM2.

Fees & Grants 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Use of Money & Property 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Commercial Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Roll-Off Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 50.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Recycling Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers from Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Actual Overall Revenue Adjustment 49.8% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% User-Overridden Revenue Adjustments on RM2? None None None None None None None None None User-Overridden Projected Revenue on RM2? Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1

CELL DATA SOURCES
User Input Calculated Surplus
Calculated Value Calculated Shortfall
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5 - Financial Model/FY 22-23 Financial Model/Porterville FY 22-23 Rate Model 020723.xlsx / RM #1 - Porterville Summary 2/7/2023
Attachment 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51

B C D E F G H I J K L
CITY OF PORTERVILLE Prepared by R3 Consulting Group
SOLID WASTE RATE MODEL Rate Model Summary (RM 1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32

SUMMARY RESULTS
Budget (City
Data)
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue 6,555,353 $ 8,515,724 $ 10,639,459 $ 11,170,393 $ 11,727,874 $ 12,313,228 $ 12,927,850 $ 13,573,204 $ 14,250,825 $ 14,962,327 $ Expenditures 6,700,256 $ 9,589,269 $ 10,028,732 $ 10,490,169 $ 10,974,677 $ 11,483,411 $ 11,517,582 $ 12,078,461 $ 12,667,384 $ 13,285,753 $ Overall Surplus/(Shortfall) (144,903) $ (1,073,545) $ 610,727 $ 680,224 $ 753,196 $ 829,817 $ 1,410,269 $ 1,494,743 $ 1,583,441 $ 1,676,574 $ as % of Total Expenditures -2% -11% 6% 6% 7% 7% 12% 12% 13% 13% Current Residential Rate = $17.85 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Monthly Residential Rate 17.85 $ 23.21 $ 29.01 $ 30.46 $ 31.98 $ 33.58 $ 35.26 $ 37.02 $ 38.87 $ 40.81 $ Change $ - $ 5.36 $ 5.80 $ 1.45 $ 1.52 $ 1.60 $ 1.68 $ 1.76 $ 1.85 $ 1.94 $ Cumulative Change % 0% 30% 63% 71% 79% 88% 98% 107% 118% 129% Annual Change % 0% 30% 25% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Operating Reserve
Beginning of FY (July 1) 855,808 $ 710,905 $ (362,640) $ 248,087 $ 928,311 $ 1,681,508 $ 2,511,325 $ 3,921,593 $ 5,416,336 $ 6,999,777 $ End of FY (June 30) 710,905 $ (362,640) $ 248,087 $ 928,311 $ 1,681,508 $ 2,511,325 $ 3,921,593 $ 5,416,336 $ 6,999,777 $ 8,676,351 $ % of Expenditures 11% -4% 2% 9% 15% 22% 34% 45% 55% 65% Months of Expenditures 1.3 -0.5 0.3 1.1 1.8 2.6 4.1 5.4 6.6 7.8 Other Reserve Fund FYE Balances FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Capital Reserve Fund (FYE) 1,904,193 $ 1,309,193 $ 1,203,193 $ 1,091,013 $ 972,468 $ 847,366 $ 715,511 $ 576,701 $ 430,726 $ 277,372 $ Equipment Replacement Fund (FYE) 2,763,748 $ 569,068 $ (115,102) $ (179,162) $ (851,035) $ 180,847 $ 460,023 $ (174,831) $ 121,348 $ 719,985 $ Total (FYE) 4,667,941 $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 $ 1,175,534 $ 401,870 $ 552,073 $ 997,357 $

REVENUE AND EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS
RATE ADJUSTMENT TIMING INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Rate Adjustment Effective Date July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st Note: All fiscal years begin July 1st, and the default rate adjustment date is July 1st. Any later rate adjustment date will result in decreased rate revenues for the projected fiscal year.

RATE/REVENUE ADJUSTMENT INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Revenue Category Note: These percentages may be overridden for specific expenditure line items on page RM2.

Fees & Grants 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Use of Money & Property 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Commercial Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Roll-Off Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 30.0% 25.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Recycling Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers from Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Actual Overall Revenue Adjustment 29.9% 24.9% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% User-Overridden Revenue Adjustments on RM2? None None None None None None None None None User-Overridden Projected Revenue on RM2? Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1

CELL DATA SOURCES
User Input Calculated Surplus
Calculated Value Calculated Shortfall
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5 - Financial Model/FY 22-23 Financial Model/Porterville FY 22-23 Rate Model 020723.xlsx / RM #1 - Porterville Summary 2/7/2023
Attachment 3
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51

B C D E F G H I J K L
CITY OF PORTERVILLE Prepared by R3 Consulting Group
SOLID WASTE RATE MODEL Rate Model Summary (RM 1)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32

SUMMARY RESULTS
Budget (City
Data)
Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Revenue 6,555,353 $ 8,188,996 $ 10,231,049 $ 11,252,075 $ 11,813,640 $ 12,403,283 $ 13,022,408 $ 13,672,489 $ 14,355,074 $ 15,071,789 $ Expenditures 6,700,256 $ 9,589,269 $ 10,028,732 $ 10,490,169 $ 10,974,677 $ 11,483,411 $ 11,517,582 $ 12,078,461 $ 12,667,384 $ 13,285,753 $ Overall Surplus/(Shortfall) (144,903) $ (1,400,273) $ 202,316 $ 761,906 $ 838,963 $ 919,871 $ 1,504,826 $ 1,594,028 $ 1,687,690 $ 1,786,036 $ as % of Total Expenditures -2% -15% 2% 7% 8% 8% 13% 13% 13% 13% Current Residential Rate = $17.85 FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Monthly Residential Rate 17.85 $ 22.31 $ 27.89 $ 30.68 $ 32.21 $ 33.82 $ 35.52 $ 37.29 $ 39.16 $ 41.11 $ Change $ - $ 4.46 $ 5.58 $ 2.79 $ 1.53 $ 1.61 $ 1.69 $ 1.78 $ 1.86 $ 1.96 $ Cumulative Change % 0% 25% 56% 72% 80% 89% 99% 109% 119% 130% Annual Change % 0% 25% 25% 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Operating Reserve
Beginning of FY (July 1) 855,808 $ 710,905 $ (689,368) $ (487,052) $ 274,854 $ 1,113,817 $ 2,033,688 $ 3,538,514 $ 5,132,542 $ 6,820,233 $ End of FY (June 30) 710,905 $ (689,368) $ (487,052) $ 274,854 $ 1,113,817 $ 2,033,688 $ 3,538,514 $ 5,132,542 $ 6,820,233 $ 8,606,268 $ % of Expenditures 11% -7% -5% 3% 10% 18% 31% 42% 54% 65% Months of Expenditures 1.3 -0.9 -0.6 0.3 1.2 2.1 3.7 5.1 6.5 7.8 Other Reserve Fund FYE Balances FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Capital Reserve Fund (FYE) 1,904,193 $ 1,309,193 $ 1,203,193 $ 1,091,013 $ 972,468 $ 847,366 $ 715,511 $ 576,701 $ 430,726 $ 277,372 $ Equipment Replacement Fund (FYE) 2,763,748 $ 569,068 $ (115,102) $ (179,162) $ (851,035) $ 180,847 $ 460,023 $ (174,831) $ 121,348 $ 719,985 $ Total (FYE) 4,667,941 $ 1,878,261 $ 1,088,091 $ 911,851 $ 121,433 $ 1,028,213 $ 1,175,534 $ 401,870 $ 552,073 $ 997,357 $

REVENUE AND EXPENSE ADJUSTMENTS
RATE ADJUSTMENT TIMING INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Rate Adjustment Effective Date July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st July 1st Note: All fiscal years begin July 1st, and the default rate adjustment date is July 1st. Any later rate adjustment date will result in decreased rate revenues for the projected fiscal year.

RATE/REVENUE ADJUSTMENT INPUTS FY 22-23 FY 23-24 FY 24-25 FY 25-26 FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30-31 FY 31-32 Revenue Category Note: These percentages may be overridden for specific expenditure line items on page RM2.

Fees & Grants 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Use of Money & Property 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Residential Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Commercial Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Roll-Off Rates - Rate Revenue 0.0% 25.0% 25.0% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Recycling Revenues 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers from Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Transfers to Other Funds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Revenue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Actual Overall Revenue Adjustment 24.9% 24.9% 10.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% User-Overridden Revenue Adjustments on RM2? None None None None None None None None None User-Overridden Projected Revenue on RM2? Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1 Yes, 1

CELL DATA SOURCES
User Input Calculated Surplus
Calculated Value Calculated Shortfall
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5 - Financial Model/FY 22-23 Financial Model/Porterville FY 22-23 Rate Model 020723.xlsx / RM #1 - Porterville Summary 2/7/2023
Attachment 4
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
34 35
36 B C D E F G H I J K L N O P Q R
Service Level Rate Service Level Rate Service Level Rate Service Level Rate Hanford Kings 53,032 Municipal 7/1/2018 Separate Rate 67.60 $ 3yd - 1x 70.90 $ 2yd - 1x 67.60 $ 135.20 $ 3yd - 2x 141.80 $ 2yd - 2x 135.20 $ Madera Madera 18,196 Mid Valley 2013 Separate Rate 52.11 $ 2yd - 1x 31.22 $ not offered not offered 102.40 $ 2yd - 2x 55.98 $ not offered not offered Sanger Fresno 27,185 Mid Valley 2010 Separate Rate 248.49 $ not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered Porterville Tulare 59,655 Municipal 5/1/2009 Separate Rate 49.60 $ 2yd - 1x 37.20 $ 2yd - 1x 37.20 $ 99.20 $ 2yd - 2x 74.40 $ 2yd - 2x 74.40 $ Fresno Fresno 545,769 Allied-Mid Val 7/1/2020 Separate Rate 79.18 $ 2yd - 1x 26.89 $ 2yd - 1x 48.32 $ 158.31 $ 2yd - 2x 53.70 $ 2yd - 2x 96.60 $ Visalia Tulare 138,649 Municipal 2013 Separate Rate 67.45 $ 2yd - 1x 39.05 $ 2yd - 1x 60.15 $ 124.20 $ 2yd - 2x 67.40 $ 2yd - 2x 109.60 $ Chowchilla Madera 392,756 Mid Valley 7/1/2020 Separate Rate 83.98 $ 2yd - 1x 35.07 $ 2yd - 1x 59.62 $ 161.73 $ 2yd - 2x 63.13 $ 2yd - 2x 107.32 $ Tulare Tulare 67,834 Municipal 7/1/2020 Yes 119.43 $ 240.70 $ Reedley Fresno 25,917 Municipal 7/1/2020 Separate Rate 122.85 $ 3yd - 1x 66.19 $ 96-gal - 1x 11.37 $ 204.71 $ 3yd - 2x 90.26 $ 96-gal - 1x 11.37 $ Dinuba Tulare 25,994 Pena 2/1/2020 Yes 127.42 $ 228.16 $ Lindsay Tulare 13,154 Mid Valley 10/1/2019 Separate Rate 82.33 $ 2yd - 1x 52.11 $ 2yd - 1x 79.30 $ 143.93 $ 2yd - 1x 52.11 $ 2yd - 2x 143.96 $ Bakersfield Kern 392,756 Municipal 2020-2021 Yes 138.52 $ 3yd - 1x 88.06 $ 3yd - 1x 119.17 $ 201.13 $ 3yd - 2x 192.74 $ 3yd - 2x 254.95 $ Woodlake Tulare 7,773 Mid-Valley 1/1/2019 Separate Rate 96.97 $ 2yd - 1x 78.29 $ 2yd - 1x 85.00 $ 165.37 $ 2yd - 1x 78.29 $ 2yd - 1x 85.00 $ Merced Merced 65,415 Municipal 7/1/2020 Separate Rate 122.28 $ 2yd - 1x 106.39 $ 2yd - 1x 130.49 $ 225.16 $ 2yd - 2x 194.72 $ 2yd - 2x 240.90 $ Coalinga Fresno 17,199 Mid Valley 7/1/2019 Separate Rate 168.91 $ 2yd - 1x 38.51 $ 2yd - 1x 79.21 $ $ 168.91 2yd - 2x $ 71.51 2yd - 2x $ 148.53 Average 98.47 $ 55.82 $ 74.02 $ 168.51 $ 94.67 $ 133.34 $ Porterville Rate 49.60 $ 37.20 $ 37.20 $ 99.20 $ 74.40 $ 74.40 $ $ (48.87) $ (18.62) $ (69.31) $ (20.27)
-99% -50% -70% -27%

50.0% Increase 74.40 $ 55.80 $ 55.80 $ 148.80 $ 111.60 $ 111.60 $ (24.07) $ (0.02) $ (18.22) $ (19.71) $ 16.93 $ (21.74) $ -32% 0% -33% -13% 15% -19%
Porterville SB 1383 Rates vs. Average Rates
Porterville Rate
vs. Average
Porterville SB 1383 Rates @
bundled with garbage not offered bundled with garbage not offered bundled with garbage N/A bundled with garbage N/A
Recycling Fee = $1.70 per unit Recycling Fee = $1.70 per unit Organics Recycling
1x / week 2x / week
Current Rates
2 yard
Jurisdiction County Population Hauler
Effective
Date
Recycling
Included in
"Current Rates"
Trash
Recycling Organics
Trash
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5.3 - Rate Survey/KD Final Porterville - Rate Survey 101921.xlsx / Com-Report Table 50% Attachment 5
2 3
4 5
6 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
34 35
36 B C D E F G
Hanford Kings 53,032 Municipal 7/1/2018 Separate Rate
Madera Madera 18,196 Mid Valley 2013 Separate Rate
Sanger Fresno 27,185 Mid Valley 2010 Separate Rate
Porterville Tulare 59,655 Municipal 5/1/2009 Separate Rate Fresno Fresno 545,769 Allied-Mid Val 7/1/2020 Separate Rate Visalia Tulare 138,649 Municipal 2013 Separate Rate
Chowchilla Madera 392,756 Mid Valley 7/1/2020 Separate Rate Tulare Tulare 67,834 Municipal 7/1/2020 Yes
Reedley Fresno 25,917 Municipal 7/1/2020 Separate Rate
Dinuba Tulare 25,994 Pena 2/1/2020 Yes
Lindsay Tulare 13,154 Mid Valley 10/1/2019 Separate Rate Bakersfield Kern 392,756 Municipal 2020-2021 Yes
Woodlake Tulare 7,773 Mid-Valley 1/1/2019 Separate Rate Merced Merced 65,415 Municipal 7/1/2020 Separate Rate
Coalinga Fresno 17,199 Mid Valley 7/1/2019 Separate Rate Average
Porterville Rate

50.0% Increase
Porterville SB 1383 Rates vs. Average Rates
Porterville Rate
vs. Average
Porterville SB 1383 Rates @
Jurisdiction County Population Hauler
Effective
Date
Recycling
Included in
"Current Rates"

T U V W X Z AA AB AC AD
Service Level Rate Service Level Rate Service Level Rate Service Level Rate

94.50 $ 3yd - 1x 70.90 $ 2yd - 1x 135.20 $ 189.00 $ 3yd - 2x 141.80 $ 2yd - 2x 135.20 $

65.84 $ 3yd - 1x 41.89 $ not offered not offered 130.34 $ 3yd - 2x 72.72 $ not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered not offered

74.40 $ 3 yd - 1x 55.80 $ 3 yd - 1x 55.80 $ 148.80 $ 3yd - 2x 111.60 $ 3yd - 2x 111.60 $ 117.02 $ 3yd - 1x 39.48 $ 3yd - 1x 71.03 $ 232.12 $ 3yd - 2x 78.08 $ 3yd - 2x 140.47 $

83.00 $ 3yd - 1x 47.40 $ 3yd - 1x 72.05 $ 154.10 $ 3yd - 2x 82.90 $ 3yd - 2x 132.20 $ 107.52 $ 3yd - 1x 44.69 $ 3yd - 1x 75.97 $ 211.92 $ 3yd - 2x 80.44 $ 3yd - 2x 136.75 $ 153.34 $ 308.61 $
178.34 $ 313.89 $
114.27 $ 3yd - 1x 72.33 $ 2yd - 1x 79.30 $ 198.97 $ 3yd - 2x 121.39 $ 2yd - 2x 143.96 $ 172.26 $ 3yd - 1x 88.06 $ 3yd - 1x 119.17 $ 253.53 $ 3yd - 2x 192.74 $ 3yd - 2x 254.95 $ $135.42 3yd - 1x 109.60 $ 2yd - 1x 85.00 $ 231.02 $ 3yd - 1x 109.60 $ 2yd - 1x 85.00 $ 133.28 $ 3yd - 1x 115.84 $ 3yd - 1x 142.30 $ 247.20 $ 3yd - 2x 213.63 $ 3yd - 2x 264.54 $ $ 253.04 3yd - 1x $ 60.51 2yd - 1x $ 79.21 253.04 $ 3yd - 2x 121.02 $ 2yd - 2x $ 148.53 129.40 $ 67.86 $ 95.47 $ 220.96 $ 120.54 $ 160.18 $

74.40 $ 55.80 $ 55.80 $ 148.80 $ 111.60 $ 111.60 $
$ (55.00) $ (12.06) $ (72.16) $ (8.94) $ (48.58)
-74% -22% -48% -8% -44%
111.60 $ 83.70 $ 83.70 $ 223.20 $ 167.40 $ 167.40 $
(17.80) $ 15.84 $ (11.77) $ 2.24 $ 46.86 $ 7.22 $
-16% 19% -14% 1% 28% 4%
bundled with garbage not offered
bundled with garbage N/A
not offered not offered
bundled with garbage not offered
bundled with garbage N/A
Trash
Recycling Organics
Trash
Recycling Organics
1x / week 2x / week
Current Ratess
3 yard
https://r3cgi.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents/R3 Shared/+Projects/Porterville - Operations Review and Rate Model - 120035/Task 5.3 - Rate Survey/KD Final Porterville - Rate Survey 101921.xlsx / Com-Report Table 50% Attachment 5

SUBMITTED TO:

City of Porterville, CA
August 11, 2022
Final Report:

Solid Waste Operational Review (Route Study)

Table of
Contents
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW| FINAL Report TOC - i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………… ...... ……………….1
1 Introduction .................................................................................. 4 2 Project Objective .......................................................................... 5 3 Approach | Scope of Review ......................................................... 5 4 Background ................................................................................... 6 Residential Collection System .............................................................. 6 Commercial Collection System ............................................................ 8 Roll-Off Services ................................................................................... 9 Street Sweeping……………………………………………………………………………. 10
Other Services…………………………………………………………………………… .... 10
Transfer Stations…………………………………………………………………………… 11
Facilities | Contract Services…………………………………………………………. 11 5 The Challenge of Municipal Operations…………………………………… . 12 6 Findings and Recommendations ................................................. 12 Safety…………………………………………………………………………………. ........... 13
Customer Services………………………………………………………………… ......... 19 Operational Performance ……………………………………………………………. . 20
7 Same Day Service………………………………………………………………………31
Figures
1 Residential Routes........................................................................................... 7 Tables
1 Residential Routes by Day and Commodity ..................................................... 7 2 Commercial Accounts and Pickups by Commodity ......................................... 8 3 Commercial Routes by Day and Commodity ........ ……………………………………… 9 4 High-Level Cost Estimates - Operational Improvements ............................... 24 5 High-Level Cost Estimates - SB 1383 Compliance .......................................... 25 Table of
Contents
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERAITONAL REVIEW |FINAL Report TOC - ii
Appendices
A Overweight Vehicles
B City of Phoenix Training Guide
C Safe Driver Observation Form
D Initial Fair Days Work Analysis
E Operational Assessment and Technology Review Report
Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Executive Summary
Overall Assessment
The City of Porterville’s (City) Field Services Division (Division) is doing a good job with available resources however, those resources are not adequate to support an operation that is in line with industry standards for safety, customer service, and operational performance.

Staff appear to be dedicated and qualified but significant advancements in the industry over the past 20 years covering all aspects of collection operations have largely not been incorporated into the Division’s operations. If the Division is to operate to industry standards not only is a significant investment needed, but there needs to be a systematic revamping of how the Division’s operations and services are structured, operated, and managed. In addition, the Division needs significant additional resources to comply with SB 1383 which became effective January 1, 2022.

To move forward effectively, the Division needs to establish clear policies and procedures. It needs to put in place comprehensive new hire, and refresher safety and operations training programs that are based on those established policies and procedures. It needs to strengthen its customer service system. Performance standards need to be established, and relevant data collected and analyzed on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis to support safe and effective operations. To accomplish the above, the Division will need additional experienced staff, and an annual budget for necessary supporting services (e.g., training program development, routing expertise, customer relations management (CRM) support, internal coaching, etc.).

Note: Division management has begun making changes to existing operations in support of the findings presented in this Operational Review.

Key Findings
Operational Review
Key findings of the operational review pertaining to the three pillars of an effective solid waste operation: Safety, Customer Service, and Operational Performance are as follows:

Safety
 Pre-trips and post-trips are not conducted properly or consistently by all drivers.  There is no formal policy or procedure for managing and addressing overweight vehicle occurrences.
 The current safety program is not to industry standards. Solid waste collection relevant safety information should be provided and additional safety data should be internally tracked and analyzed.
 Drivers are trained and signed off by other drivers. Supervisor(s) and/or management should be the authoritative party in deciding qualifications of a new hire throughout the probationary period.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Customer Service
 The customer database is not centralized, and multiple software programs are used to track and monitor customer account activity.
 Clerical Assistants, who essentially serve as the Division customer service representatives and dispatchers are not universally trained, and each has his/her own way of performing job functions. This is problematic when coverage is necessary and leads to delays in work processes.
 Communication with drivers is currently problematic. Drivers are using personal cell phones which they are not required to utilize for work and therefore do not have to make and/or receive Division-related calls.
 Missed Pick-Ups (MPUs) are not currently tracked and managed in a manner that deters repeat service failures.
 Service fees are not consistently applied. Additionally, some service fees are not charged at a rate consistent with the cost of the service provided (e.g., return services typically cost on the order of $50.00 per return service and the Division currently charges $10.00).

Operational Performance
 The Division does not have a comprehensive list of documented policies and procedures.
 There is not sufficient route supervision, or analytical support to provide management and supervisor(s) with the information needed to effectively manage operations.
 The residential and commercial collection systems are understaffed, which results in considerable overtime.
 Daily workloads are not effectively balanced among existing routes; Fair day work standards need to be developed for the residential and commercial collection systems and those systems rerouted based on those established standards.
 The Division does not use time clocks which could be beneficial and are the industry standard.
 Same day service can be implemented, although it may require some special routing for hard to service accounts. Should the City decide to implement same day service it will need to restructure and reroute its entire residential collection system. This will provide the opportunity for optimizing residential routes and daily workloads.

Technology Review
As part of the Operational Review, Sloan, Vazquez, McAfee (SVM) evaluated several potential technology enhancements for Division consideration. SVM’s Operational Assessment Technology Report is provided in Attachment E. Key findings are provided below.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Integrated Customer Relationship Manager Software
 The use of an industry-specific customer service relationship manager (CRM) has become essential for efficient and cost-effective solid waste operations.  The City’s solid waste operation lacks an effective integrated CRM.  Customer Service and related functions can be greatly improved by procuring an industry-specific CRM to process customer requests, complaints, and inquiries.  Introducing a new CRM will require advance planning and on-going coordination, including selecting the best system, meeting the requirements for conversion, creating the CRM database, and training staff.

On-Board Devices (Tablets/Computers)
 With the proliferation of smaller devices such as laptops, workbooks, tablets, and even telephones, the functionality of device access has expanded the opportunities for efficiency gains and service quality improvements.
 While using these devices mounted in a collection vehicle may at times be too expensive or ambitious, the more practical uses for this technology are in route supervision, container pick-up and delivery, bulky item collection, and routing and billing auditing.
 The City does not currently use on-board devices due to a lack of an integrated CRM.  To introduce on-board devices, the solid waste operation must either acquire a CRM system or choose a standalone product from a vendor such as FleetMind or SmartWare.

RFID Tag Identification
 The application of RFID tags offers the potential to improve container management and tracking.
 Bar Code labels can also be used to improve container inventory management but offer less functionality than RFID tags. Bar Code labels are attached to containers as a sticker.
 To introduce RFID tags, the solid waste operation must either also acquire a CRM system or choose a standalone product from vendors such as FleetMind or SmartWare.

On-Board Interior/Exterior Camera Monitoring System
 Most vehicles are equipped with a 2-camera system; one for the hopper area and a back-up camera provided by Safety Vision and multiple other manufacturers.  Almost all of the Division’s collection vehicles are equipped with Lytx event recorders that capture the driver and provide a front view.
 The Lytx system allows for GPS tracking of vehicles, capturing evidence during accidents, and critical incidents for use in safety training or compliance.  To maximize the benefit from the use of systems such as Lytx requires an intentional effort to assign staff and provide training to perform new tasks.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report  While the Lytx system provides useful tools, the system is currently underutilized due to lack of training and recent changes in personnel.

On-Board Truck Scales
 The Porterville operation does not currently equip its fleet with on-board scales.  Procuring and installing on-board scales can range between $15,000 to $20,000 per truck.
 Because of the heavy demands placed on them in while loading trucks, on-board scales are high maintenance and are often out-of-order. Furthermore, maintenance personnel typically do not consider them a high priority when it comes to repairing them.
 To justify these expenditures would require a focused effort to use the on-board scales to maximize payloads that could result in a reduction in number of trucks and personnel needed to provide collection service.

Upgraded Field Communications
 Porterville operation uses a two-way radio system with a base in the office as the primary means of communication with the drivers.
 When out of range, drivers use their personal cell phones as a secondary means of communication to call the office landline.
 Solid waste operations have adapted by continuing the use of radio service when available, and by migrating to push-to-talk systems or to the use of cellular phones.  A notable trend is the reduction in oral communication by use of on-board devices to communicate with the customer service system in real time. This advancement is not viable without a dedicated CRM system.
1 Introduction
R3 Consulting Group (R3) was originally engaged by the City to conduct a Solid Waste Study that involved the following major tasks:
 Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review – Evaluating how the Division currently provides solid waste services, and making recommendations for improving the overall performance of the City’s municipal solid waste management system;  Technology Review – Assessing a range of technologies for potential use by the Division, including: RFID tags; smartphone mobile applications; and upgraded field communications systems;
 Rate Model / Financial Plan – Developing an Excel-based Rate Model / Financial Plan to be used to project the Division’s costs over an extended planning period (e.g., 1-5 and 5-10 years) accounting for, among other things, timely vehicle replacement and other future capital costs;
 Jurisdictional Rate Survey – Comparing the City’s solid waste rates to those of other cities in the greater San Joaquin Valley;
Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

 Solid Waste Vehicle Impact Fee – Quantifying a fee that could be charged to the Division for that portion of the City’s the street maintenance costs associated with repairs caused by the City’s solid waste vehicles; and
 Proposition 218 Hearing – Supporting the City’s compliance with Proposition 218 requirements.

This document addresses the Solid Waste Collection System Operational Review and Technology Review.
2 Project Objective
To review the Division’s operations to identify opportunities for improved efficiency and provide recommendations for specific changes to support operations and services on par with generally practiced industry standards.
3 Approach | Scope of Review
As part of our review R3 conducted a wide range of tasks, including but not limited to:
 Observing various functions within the operations of the Division, including fleet maintenance;
 Observing morning routines and day-to-day operational activities;  Interviewing personnel in each area of the Division (management, supervisor/driver(s), dispatch/customer service);
 Reviewing existing policies and procedures;
 Evaluating existing routes and workloads; and
 Reviewing a wide range of information and data (to the degree available) including:
o Safety statistics;
o Load weight data and the tracking of load weights and overweight vehicles; o Productivity data including residential and commercial workloads; o Residential collection routes;
o Job descriptions;
o Missed pickup data;
o Vehicle replacement schedule;
o Organizational structure, and roles and responsibilities; o Driver training program; and
o Tracking of work hours.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report 4 Background
The City is a charter city that was incorporated in 1901. The City has a current population of nearly 60,000 and is located in Tulare County; 17 miles east of State Route 99, approximately 70 miles south of Fresno and 50 miles north of Bakersfield. The incorporated area of the City covers approximately 17.6 square miles and is in the process of annexation to incorporate additional acreage and associated residences and businesses.

Division Services
The Division provides residential, commercial, and roll off services to the following:
 Approximately 14,000 residential customers (cans);
 Approximately 1,200 commercial customers (bins);1
 Approximately 100 commercial roll-off customers (boxes); and  Up to 90 (temporary) residential customers (bins).

By City ordinance, the Division is the exclusive hauler for all residential and commercial solid waste services, including permanent and temporary roll-off services. All residential and commercial solid waste loads are taken to the Tulare County Teapot Dome Landfill for disposal2. Division vehicles that haul loads of green waste and recyclable materials are taken to the City’s transfer station where a third-party contractor hauls the material offsite for processing.

Staffing Schedule
All route drivers work four (4) ten (10) hour days per week, with residential and commercial services provided five (5) days per week. There is also one (1) Saturday commercial trash route. Roll-off containers are collected Monday through Friday.

4.1 Residential Collection System
The City is divided into four (4) collection zones, each representing a section of the City that would receive service for each individual commodity (solid waste, recycling, and green waste) on three separate days. The zoning description and associated collection breakdown is provided in Figure 1 on the following page.
1 There are a few commercial accounts that utilize residential containers (cans) for service. 2 The County has informed the Division that the Teapot Dome facility will be closing within the next 2 years at which point the Division will need to deliver trash to the County’s Woodville Landfill located at 19800 Road 152, 5 mi S of SR 137, 7 mi SE of Tulare, Visalia, CA 93291.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Figure 1
Residential Routes
The Division is considering moving away from the current structure that requires residents to place each container out for collection on three separate days to a structure in which customers bring all three cans to the curb for collection on the same day, which is the industry standard. A review of the Same Day Service option is provided in Section 7. Most but not all accounts receive curbside services, with some limited alley collection.

Current residential service is provided primarily utilizing 95-gallon cans for trash (black) and green waste (green) and 65-gallon cans for recyclables (blue), although customers can opt for 35- or 65-gallon cans for trash and 65-gallon cans for green waste. Each residential can is serviced once per week.

Note: The City’s black, green, and blue cart color convention is in line with CalRecycle requirements under SB 1383.

Currently, there are a total of 28 defined weekly residential routes spread over the five service days. The routing breakdown by day is provided in Table 1:

Table 1
Residential Routes by Day and Commodity
Day of Week Trash Recycling Organics Total
Monday 0 4 0 4
Tuesday 0 2 4 6
Wednesday 0 0 4 4
Thursday 7 0 0 7
Friday 7 0 0 7
Total 14 6 8 28
Container maintenance/delivery routes: Monday through Friday, as needed Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Residential services are provided with the following resources:

Staffing
 1 - supervisor position
 2 - lead worker positions
 8 - residential operator positions
 1 - maintenance/delivery position
Equipment
 Inventory of approximately 16,000 each of black, green, and blue cans  11 - automated side loaders (ASL)
 1 - ½ ton pickup truck for container delivery, removals, and repairs  1 - ½ ton pickup truck for supervisor(s)
 3 - flatbed trucks for special deliveries, special hauls, and alley clean ups

4.2 Commercial Collection System
The Division provides commercial collection services for trash (six days per week), recycling (five days per week), and organic waste (one day per week) utilizing front-end loading (FEL) vehicles. Service is provided utilizing a variety of bin sizes ranging from 2 to 6 yards.

Commercial food waste is collected in 2 or 3-yard bins. The commercial FELs are all single compartment trucks that carry one waste stream at a time. The Division provides temporary commercial bin (2 to 6 yard) rentals for residential usage and FEL drivers may service up to 12 per day during regular route collection.

Table 2, below, provides an accounting of the commercial lifts for each day of the week and in total. Table 3, on the following page, provides an accounting of the number of routes per day for each of the three commodities.

Table 2
Commercial Accounts and Pickups by Commodity
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Total
Trash 1,023 364 326 306 354 329 110 1,789 1.7
Recycling 212 104 8 98 100 90 15 415 2.0
Organics 18 2 6 13 2 4 2 29 1.6
Pickups Accounts
Ave
Weekly
Freq.

Commodity
Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Table 3
Commercial Routes by Day and Commodity
Note: There is conflicting data on schedule for commercial recycling and organics services.

Table 2 data shows both commercial recycling and commercial organics services six (6) days per week. The Division reported that recycling and organics bins scheduled for Saturday are collected on the trash route and commingled with trash. This practice should be discontinued with recycling and organics Saturday rescheduled for weekday collection by the appropriate routes. Additionally, organics accounts should be consolidated on to one or two weekday collections.

Commercial services are provided with the following resources:

Staffing
 1 - supervisor position (same supervisor responsible for residential services)  2 - lead worker positions (overlaps with residential positions)  5 - commercial operator positions
Equipment
 Inventory of approximately 23 one-yd, 210 two-yd, 760 three-yd, 450 fouryd, and 40 six-yd bins  8 - front-end loaders

4.3 Roll-Off Services
The Division provides roll-off bin service for the following materials:
 Mixed waste;
 Construction and demolition debris; and
 Green waste.

Roll-off services are provided with the following resources:

Day of Week Trash Recycling Organics
Monday 2 1 0
Tuesday 2 1 0
Wednesday 2 1 1
Thursday 2 1 0
Friday 2 1 0
Saturday 1 0 0
Total 11 5 1
Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Staffing
 1 - supervisor position (same supervisor responsible for residential and commercial services)
 2 - roll-off operator positions
Equipment
 Inventory of approximately 5 fifteen-yd and 96 thirty-yd boxes. Drivers also service 9 privately-owned compactors.
 4 - roll-off trucks.

Roll Off operations service (drop-off, switch-out, pick-up), up to 12 boxes per day.

4.4 Street Sweeping
The City provides street sweeping services to residential and commercial streets, arterial streets, City-maintained parking lots, and paved alleyways. Frequency of services in residential and commercial areas are once per month, with the exception of Downtown Porterville, which are serviced once per week. Approximately 475 miles of streets swept once per month.

Staffing
 1 - supervisor position (same supervisor responsible for services listed above)  1 - full time employee
Equipment
 3 - vacuum sweepers
 1 - broom sweeper

4.5 Other Services
The Division also provides the following services:
 Free Dump Day – The Division provides 2 (two) free dump day events per year; one in April and one in October at the City Corporation Yard. These events are provided so that residents (City residents only) can dispose of excess trash, green waste, cardboard, concrete, metal, and e-waste free of charge.  Christmas Tree Drop-Off – The program is conducted for a two-week period beginning the first Monday following Christmas Day. 30-yard roll-off boxes are placed at the City Corporation Yard for residents to drop off their used Christmas trees. At the conclusion of the two-week period, and as needed during the two-week period, the roll off boxes are hauled to the green waste site at the Tulare County Landfill.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

4.6 Transfer Stations
The City has a permitted transfer station located at 555 North Prospect Street that is permitted for the following operations:
 Transfer / Processing Facility (MRF)
 Compostable Materials Handling Operations
The facility is permitted for 500 tons per day, and 136 vehicles per day (97 collection vehicles and 39 transfer trailers). All residential green waste, commercial organics, and residential and commercial recyclables are delivered to the transfer station. The recycling transfer station consists of a concrete pad as shown in Picture 1 below. Recycling routes tip their loads of recyclables directly into transfer trailers. Green waste is tipped onto a dirt surface, as shown below in Picture 2, and then loaded into drop boxes which are then transferred to Pena’s Disposal Service at 12094 Avenue 408 in Cutler, CA. The Division’s capital improvement program calls for improving both the green waste and recycling transfer stations, and also adding administrative space and expanded vehicle maintenance facilities.

Picture 1 Picture 2
Recyclables Transfer Station Green Waste Transfer Station

4.7 Facilities | Contract Services
Trash
The City’s trash collection trucks haul their loads to Tulare County’s Teapot Dome Landfill. The County has informed the City that the Tea Pot Dome Landfill will be closing within the next 2 years. At that point the City will need to deliver solid waste to the County’s Woodville Landfill.

Hauling loads to the Woodville Landfill is expected to result in an estimated 20 additional minutes per load.

Green Waste
Green waste is taken to the City’s transfer station where it is dumped on the tipping floor and then loaded into roll-off boxes and hauled by Pena’s Disposal Service to its facility located at 12094 Avenue 408 in Cutler, CA.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Recyclables
Recyclable material is taken to the City’s transfer station where it is dumped on the tipping floor and then loaded into roll-off boxes and hauled by Pena’s Disposal Service to its facility located at 12094 Avenue 408 in Cutler, CA.
5 The Challenge of Municipal
Operations
Perhaps the greatest advantage of municipal operations is the direct control that the jurisdiction has over its solid waste management system. A jurisdiction also has the ability to be responsive to issues that arise outside of regular collection (e.g., trash resulting from homelessness, illegal dumping, etc.). Alternatively, with total control also comes total responsibility for the safety, and operational, financial, and regulatory compliance aspects of those services.

One of the greatest disadvantages of municipal operations, as compared to private sector operations, is the lack of economies of scale, and supporting resources provided by a corporate office. Municipal operations also typically lack direct control over key fundamental support services (i.e., safety, vehicle maintenance, customer service, and billing). Additionally, City Council goals and objectives (e.g., minimize rate impacts to residents) may not always align with the operational and financial needs of solid waste management operations, which are ever increasing in part due to unfunded state mandates.

In the private sector, a hauler’s general manager reports directly to the regional manager, and their goals and objectives are fully aligned. Those goals and objectives are supported by larger corporate resources, which are significant in the case of regional and national haulers (e.g., Republic, Waste Management, Mid Valley Disposal). Those resources include dedicated safety managers, comprehensive and ongoing safety training programs, GIS routing capacity, and clearly established policies and procedures. While municipal operations have and continue to incorporate best management industry practices, as noted above they are at a fundamental disadvantage to the private sector due to the lack of economies of scale, dedicated corporate support services, and the lack of direct control over their critical support services. If the City is to operate a municipal collection system to industry standards, City management, and current and future City Councils need to fully support that effort by providing the necessary operational and financial resources.
6 Findings and Recommendations
In considering our findings and recommendations provided below, we encourage the Division to take a measured, organized, and methodical approach to implementing any changes. This includes developing appropriate supporting policies and procedures, providing associated Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

staff training and oversight, and holding staff accountable for performance so that desired changes become standard operating procedures and are sustained.

6.1 Safety

1. Pre-Trips Are Not Being Done Consistently
Pre-trip inspections are required for the operation of commercial vehicles pursuant to federal law. During a pre-trip inspection a driver completes a Driver Vehicle Inspection Report (DVIR) to record all findings, positive and negative, regarding the operation of a commercial vehicle.

DVIRs no longer need to be kept in the vehicle itself, but are required to be completed daily, filed, and kept for no less than 3 months. The importance of a pre-trip inspection is to identify potential vehicle failures prior to the vehicle entering public roadways to reduce the risk of accidents and avoid service interruptions.

As part of our review, R3 observed morning routines and dispatch operations. The quality of pre-trip routines varied considerably among drivers. Some would exit the yard without conducting a pre-trip, some would conduct some standard pre-trip activities, including testing their hydraulics to ensure they were working, but none of the drivers conducted a brake test.

Recommendations:

A. Reorganize the collection vehicle parking lot to group vehicles by launch time (i.e., commercial vehicles grouped together and assigned stalls, etc.). The assigned parking locations enable supervisor/management to observe and ensure that proper pre-trips are being conducted more effectively.

B. Develop a specific policy and protocol for pre- and post-trip inspections and implement a new hire and refresher training program for all employees to ensure that they understand the policy and protocol and have been effectively trained.

C. Morning supervision should be implemented in order to ensure that the morning launch routine (including the pre-trip inspection) is conducted concisely, effectively, and completely. . Incorporating this requirement may result in an adjustment of the Supervisor’s schedule from 4 days per week 10 hours per day to 5 days per week 8 hours per day, or the addition of another Supervisor (or at least equitable position).

2. Drivers are Overloading Vehicles
The Division currently records overweight vehicles, but that information is not tracked and reported daily to the offending drivers. Additionally, there is no policy or procedure for management’s daily review of vehicle load weights.

The Division’s 2019 Overweight Trips Report identified a total of 335 overweight vehicles for the year, which is 5% of the total trash loads hauled in 2019. There were three (3) drivers that accounted for 47.5% of all overweight loads. Overweight loads create maintenance issues, increase associated street maintenance costs, and put the City at risk should an overweight Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report vehicle be involved in an accident. The industry standard is to track vehicle weights on a daily basis, identify all overweight loads, and take immediate corrective action with the drivers.3 For purposes of an industry standard, WMI’s overweight vehicle policy is that any load that is overweight by less than 1 ton triggers a root cause analysis (and form) and monitoring with adjustments as needed depending on circumstances of the root cause. Any load that is overweight by more than 1 ton is automatic disciplinary action and a root cause analysis.

Recommendations:

D. Implement an Overweight Vehicle Policy and notify and train staff for compliance with that policy. Attachment A provides a draft Overweight Vehicle Policy (and Overweight Load Incident Review reporting form), that we recommend the Division review, revise as appropriate, and implement. As noted, under the proposed policy supervisor(s) (or administrative staff) would be responsible for printing out daily Vehicle Weight Reports. The Field Services Supervisor would be responsible for:
 Reviewing those reports at the end of each day and identifying all overweight vehicles and the offending driver;
 Reviewing all cases of overweight loads with drivers the next day; and  Documenting an Overweight Load Incident Review before that driver starts his or her route the next day.

3. Division Specific OSHA Form 300 and Other Safety Data is not Tracked, Analyzed and Reported
Tracking OSHA frequency rates, severity rates, and vehicle accidents is the industry standard.

While OSHA data is tracked at the Public Works Department level, Division specific data is not tracked and there are no established safety standards, metrics, or historical OSHA results against which to measure performance. The lack of Division specific vehicle accident, and worker injury data at a level that allows for identifying and evaluating the root causes, means the Division does not have the information it needs to determine the primary causes of vehicle accidents and injuries. As such, it has no basis upon which to establish policies and procedures to address those root causes and develop targeted safety training.

Recommendations:

E. Starting with 2021 data, begin tracking and reporting the following data specific to the Division:
 OSHA and Non-OSHA reportable accidents and injuries;
3 A standard for enforcing weight laws has been established by the CHP. The standard states, "Vehicles weighing in excess of the legal limits by 100 pounds or more shall not be permitted to proceed until the overload has been adjusted or removed." In practice, CHP may allow for a 200- pound variation factor. After applying the variation factor, any vehicle exceeding the axle weight, axle group weight, or gross weight limits by 100 pounds or more will be issued a citation and required either to adjust the load to make it legal or obtain an overweight permit before proceeding.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

o OSHA Total Reportable Incident Rates (TRIR) [injury frequency rate]; o Days Away from Work, Job Restriction or Transfer (DART) Rates [injury severity rate]
 Vehicle accident-related benchmarks:
o Vehicle Accident Recordable Rate (VARR) – The number of operational hours between vehicle accidents – the higher the VARR, the better. o Property Accident Recordable Rate (PARR) – The number of operational hours between property accidents – the higher the PARR, the better. o Severity Rate – calculation of days away from work due to injury o Number of vehicle accidents and number of property accidents per 100,000 miles driven.4
Conduct root cause assessment of all accidents and injuries and track and report that data in support of specific actions to address primary causes of accidents and injuries.

4. The Division Does Not Have a Solid Waste Specific Safety Training Program The consideration of “Safety First” is the industry standard and the foundation of effective solid waste management operations. It impacts customer service, employee morale, operational costs, and other factors. Solid waste and recyclable materials collectors have one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, consistently ranking in the top ten jobs with respect to the number of fatal injuries per 100,000 full-time employees; higher than both police officers and firefighters. Waste Management, Inc. and Republic Services, the two largest private solid waste management companies in the country, have dedicated considerable attention to safety, which has been reflected in significant improvements in their safety records over time.

Our experience has been, however, that municipal solid waste operations tend to have relatively poor safety records, as compared to the industry. This is likely due to a combination of factors, including relatively limited safety resources as compared to larger private haulers, and the success of the safety programs of the largest private operators in the industry. This has resulted in improvements to the industry safety standard against which individual operator safety performance, including that of municipal operations, is measured.

A good safety program is proactive, considers the specific causes of driving accidents and worker injuries and focuses training on addressing those underlying root causes. Our findings related to the lack of effective vehicle pre-trips and excessive overweight vehicle discussed above, highlight safety issues that should be City and Division priorities. 4 Track all vehicle accidents in detail including date, time, weather, location, type of accident, cause of accident, party at fault, etc. Review prior existing vehicle accident data, categorize, and evaluate as to type and cause to determine the most common types of accidents (e.g., backing, intersections, etc.) and establish associated training.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report While the City’s Risk Management Department appears to be conducting required “general” safety training via distribution of a City-wide safety binder, the Division does not have a dedicated “solid waste collection” specific training program. Such a program is a best management practice, and a fundamental component of an effective solid waste management operation. Developing and implementing such a program requires safety staffing, training (i.e., train the trainer), and supporting resources, which the City/Risk Management/Division does not currently have.

Note: The Division currently pays an annual licensing fee for a Lytx (hardware and software) program that incorporates a system of cameras on each collection vehicle for the purpose of improving driver behavior. The tool itself is valuable, but there is not currently a system in place to utilize the program proactively and effectively, which diminishes its value.

Recommendations:

F. Hire a full-time Administrative Analyst, ideally with an analytical and safety background who would initially have direct responsibility for completing, or otherwise facilitating completion of the following:
i. Implementation of a Management by Metrics (M&M) program that includes, at a minimum, the recommended benchmarks listed in Item 20 below (The Division Realizes the Value of Performance Benchmarking but Does Not Currently Have the Resources Necessary to Implementing a Broad-Based Program).
ii. Root cause analysis of every vehicle accident and worker injury and tracking of the top 5 causes of vehicle accidents and top 5 causes of worker injuries within the Division.
iii. Developing a Division New Hire and Refresher (and Cross) Training Program that is based on understanding the underlying causes of the Division’s vehicle accidents and worker injuries.5
G. Have Division management, supervisor(s), and lead workers (if warranted) actively participate in SWANA safety training opportunities.6
H. Provide supervisor(s) with appropriate route supervisor training, relevant software training (Lytx, Access, Excel), and management reports developed to provide actionable performance data.

I. Develop Cross-Training Program - Delegation of duties and cross-training are key to the success of the division.
5 Weekly Safety Meetings should include vehicle safety, physical safety, OSHA, HHW safety, refresher topics like lock-out tag-out, and other relevant topics. 6 SWANA’s annual Safety Summit is a curated program track that focuses solely on all aspects of solid waste safety, including garbage truck safety, safe practices in landfills and transfer stations, and more. Speakers talk about their experiences with enforcing rules and regulations with everything, from OSHA to fires.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

J. Utilize existing Lytx program and train managerial staff on functionality and proper coaching techniques to drive behavioral change. 7
Safety Training Case Study
Attachment B provides an article on the City of Phoenix’s safety program, which provides a good overview of an effective Safety Program that decreased accidents from 8.1 per 100,000 miles driven in 2000, to 0.89 accidents per 100,000 miles driven in 2012. As noted, prospective candidates that have the necessary paperwork first take a Driving Skills Assessment Test. If the candidate passes that test, they go on to an interview process, followed by a Personal Selection Inventory (PSI) Assessment, which is helpful in identifying customer service and safety orientated employees. Successful candidates then report to the City of Phoenix Employee Driver Training Academy (EDTA) for three weeks of classroom and course training, during which time they are evaluated on driving skills by the training Solid Waste Foreman, who will decide if they need more training or are to move on to Field Training, with an authorized training Solid Waste Equipment Operator (SWEO), who has been authorized to train after undergoing “train the trainer” training.

The SWEO is then assigned to a training route, after being signed off by the trainer and management. Refresher training is accomplished through weekly tailgate safety program meetings; same day and time each week to establish and maintain consistency in expectation.

Suggested Initial Safety Focus
Republic Services, the second largest waste hauler in the country, has a comprehensive corporate safety program with its “Safe Actions for Excellence” (SAFE) booklet providing its Safety Policy and related standards and responsibilities. A key part of Republic’s safety program is its Focus 6 training that focuses on eliminating the six most common or significant types of industry specific accidents:
 Intersections;
 Employees;
 Backing;8
 Rollovers;
 Pedestrians; and
 Rear Collisions.
7 Lytx is designed to capture video and audio inside and outside the vehicle when triggered by abrupt actions (such as hard braking, sudden acceleration, swerving or a collision) and provide real-time feedback. The risky driving events are then analyzed, scored by a third-party evaluator, and posted to a secure website for driver coaching and improvement. Lytx, when properly implemented also helps protect the City from false damage claims related to the Division’s vehicles. 8 A large portion of total accidents in the Solid Waste industry occur while backing. However, backing accidents are 100% Preventable.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Absent Division specific data on its most common accidents and injuries, we suggest the Division (with City Risk Management support, as possible) start the development of the Division’s Safety Program by developing policies and procedures, and providing training specific to each of the six (6) areas listed above.

Additionally, we suggest implementing a policy of zero-tolerance around an explicit list of specific actions, similar to what Waste Management utilizes. The following list is referred to by Waste Management as the Life Critical Rules:
 Never back a vehicle with someone on the riding steps.  Never back a dual drive vehicle from the right side without the proper mirrors, camera(s)/monitor.
 Never exceed the speed limits posted or set by policy for school zones, riding steps, and stand-up right-side driving.
 Always comply with Hazardous Energy Control Program (Lock Out / Tag Out (LOTO)) procedures.
 Always comply with seatbelt rules.
 Never zigzag.
 Never double-side unless approved by management and specific conditions are met.
 Never modify or disable equipment safety devices.
 Always comply with tipping floor or workface rules.
 Always apply parking brakes when exiting a vehicle.
 Never use a communication device while driving or operating vehicles or mobile equipment.

The Life Critical Rules listed above were named as such because each of the described actions lead to industry fatalities of either the driver involved or members of the public. These rules are the core of Waste Management’s safety program and drivers are required to memorize each of these rules.

The Division should adopt a similar list (updated as appropriate for relevancy) of nonnegotiable zero tolerance safety rules as the foundational piece of any safety program development.

5. Drivers Are Trained and Signed Off by Other Drivers
Drivers are currently joining the Division as probationary employees and begin training immediately with other drivers. At the end of the probationary period, the drivers sign off on the probationary driver rather than management.

The lack of documented Division specific policies and procedures or formal operational standards for drivers (see Solid Waste Specific Policies and Procedures below) means there is no ability to train drivers to established policies and procedures, and objective performance standards. Without such standards, it is not possible for there to be a consistent training program or protocol, or to ensure that drivers are receiving all appropriate training.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Recommendations:

K. Initial Refuse Driver training should be conducted by a qualified safety representative and should include classroom and on-route training. On-route training should be done by trusted staff (preferably trusted drivers) but must be reviewed and signed off by supervisor(s) to ensure that drivers are being trained correctly (regarding safety, service, and efficiency) before being elevated from probationary status.

L. Develop a formal documented new hire and refresher safety and customer service training program.

6. The Division Does Not Have a Formal “Safe Driver Observation” Program in Place
An industry best management practice is for supervisors to conduct regular formal field observations to monitor the performance and safety of route drivers, which the Division does not currently do. A suggested standard is for supervisors is to observe each route at least once per month. Such field observations should cover all drivers, with more focus on newer drivers, or drivers that have had an accident or injury, or where issues were previously identified during such observations.

The Division’s ability to conduct consistent and effective safe driver observations is hindered by the lack of documented policies and procedures and performance standards.

Recommendations:

M. Provide supervisor(s) with safety observation training N. Begin regular documented Safety Observations by Supervisor(s) O. Attachment C contains a copy of a Safe Driver Observation Form used by Waste Management (WM) that we suggest the City tailor to its needs. Note that the specific items to be observed listed under “Description” are associated with a specific Rule #, which is documented in WM’s Operations and Safety Rules Book. The review of all documented operations and safety rules is part of WM’s new hire and ongoing refresher training.

6.2 Customer Service

7. Standardize Clerical Assistant Processes
Clerical Assistants act as customer service representatives and dispatchers for Division operations. One major concern regarding customer service is that each of the clerical assistants has their own method for conducting work, which is problematic. Training of all operational data tracking, monitoring, filing, etc. needs to be universal, not just for the clerical assistants but for management as well. Fluidity in transitioning work from one employee to another, is essential especially during times of employee absence, whether temporary (sick, vacation) or long-term (vacated position).

Recommendations:

P. The Division needs to design a uniform process for the application of procedures for operational activities. All staff need to be trained on the new processes and those Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report processes must to be instituted, managed, and maintained. Any future employees need to be trained on the same set of expectations and application of procedural processes.

8. Reduce Frequency of Route Rotations
Drivers currently rotate routes every four (4) months. Routing rotations are not necessarily uncommon, however the frequency; every 4 months, is uncommon. The theory behind routing rotations is that it keeps drivers fresh and attentive as they learn new areas, and reduces customer claims of “targeting” by specific drivers related to service issues. While drivers can benefit from a change in routine from servicing the same area week after week, it is common for customer service issues to spike during routing rotations/transitions due to unfamiliarity of the route and associated customers, as well as a change in typical arrival time of the new driver.

Recommendations:

Q. Adjust route rotation frequency to once every 2 years, or at the very least annually, in order to increase routing efficiencies while simultaneously reducing customer complaints regarding service-related issues.

9. Tracking and Analyzing Customer Services Issues
Customer service issues, including missed pickups (MPUs), are not currently tracked and monitored in a way that allows for effective analysis and management. Ideally, the Division would review customer complaints based on type, frequency, and patterns (e.g.: repeat customers, repeat drivers) on a regular basis and manage accordingly to reduce occurrences.

Recommendations:

R. In order to manage service-related customer complaints, the Division must be able to measure the type and frequency of incoming complaints. Until a centralized customer database system is incorporated into Division operations, a spreadsheet should be created to track occurrences by recording the following information: date of complaint, type of complaint, name of customer, customer address (and associated route and driver), corrective action taken, and date of resolution. Ideally, the Division should start the process by inputting the past years’ worth of hand tags into a spreadsheet to create a baseline and identify repeat occurrences and monitor problem customers and/or problem drivers by monitoring frequency and repeat activity.

6.3 Operational Performance

10. Replace Vehicles as Scheduled
Having safe and well-maintained collection vehicles is critical to collection system performance. The Division has a fleet replacement schedule that provides for the timely replacement of vehicles.

Recommendations:

S. Adequately fund the Division’s Equipment Replacement Fund to ensure that funding is available for timely vehicle and equipment replacement.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

11. The Division Needs Additional Resources to Support Operations that are In Line with Industry Standards
The Division is understaffed in several key positions, including management/supervision, analytical support, and route drivers. Filling these positions with qualified personnel is vital to the overall success of the Division.
a) Residential Routes
A review of the current residential solid waste workload finds that residential trash routes are currently averaging 1,045 accounts per day. Recycling and green waste routes collect an average of 1,829 accounts per day. The residential trash route workload is at the higher end of what is likely a reasonable range for a 10-hour workday, with a number of routes with more than 1,100 accounts per day, and two with more than 1,200. This data, along with anecdotal information about the significant amounts of overtime that the Division incurs suggests that at least oneaddition residential route is needed, along with a rebalancing of the daily workloads among routes.
b) Commercial Routes
A review of the current commercial solid waste workload finds that commercial trash routes are currently averaging 168 stops (accounts) per day (excluding Saturdays).

Recycling routes collect an average of 96 stops per day (excluding Saturdays) and green waste routes collect an average of 6 stops per day (excluding Saturdays). In our experience, the typical productivity range for commercial collection systems is roughly 80-100+ bins per day for an 8-hour per day route. A 10-hour day route would bump the range up to 120-130+ bins. This would suggest that the current commercial trash route workloads may be excessive, although that trash workload would be expected to decrease with the full implementation of SB 1383 commercial recycling and commercial organics collection programs.

With the implementation of expanded commercial organics and commercial recycling services there should be a significant shift in the amount of commercial solid waste disposed, with organics and recyclables that are currently disposed captured through those expanded collection programs. As those programs are implemented, the Division should seek to optimize collection services for each individual account adjusting cart and container sizes and collection frequency to provide for efficient collection of the weekly quantities of each material generated. The goal should be to minimize the weekly frequency of collection for each commodity by increasing the size (and/or number) of carts and containers as feasible.

A complete review of the commercial collection system structure, including the number of routes and daily workloads, should be undertaken in conjunction with the implementation of the City’s SB 1383 commercial collection system. Our rate modeling provides for two additional commercial routes to support expanded commercial recycling and commercial organics collection services (See Item #13 “The Division Needs Additional Resources to Comply with SB 1383 and Other Regulatory Requirements” below.)
Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report c) Roll-Off Collection Services
Roll off can be the most challenging aspect of collection operations to manage and requires active monitoring. Roll-off routes collect up to 12 loads per driver per day, which is in line with a typical 10-hour per day roll-off collection service. There may be opportunities to increase commercial roll off services through roll-off route sequencing (haul matching) to optimize container delivery and collection and effectively improve collection efficiencies.
d) Field Services Supervisor (Route Supervisor)
As currently structured, the Division has one (1) Field Services Supervisor who works a 4 day 10 hour schedule. As such, the Division does not have onsite route supervision during all weekday operations, with lead drivers addressing supervisor issues during those un-covered operating hours. The Field Services Supervisor is not present during pre-trips due to a start time scheduled after the drivers leave the yard for the day.

The Field Services Supervisor does not conduct safety meetings or tailgates, which is common practice, but does provide a clipboard of information for drivers to read on their own. While the City has a Lytx DriveCam system it does not appear that the Field Services Supervisor is using the full capacity of that system to monitor and improve driver performance. Due to the lack of an effective communication system between customer service and route drivers, the Field Services Supervisor is largely responsible for relaying messages to the drivers from customer service, which is not productive.

The Field Services Supervisor position is the critical link between management and drivers and sets the tone for operations. The City’s Field Services Supervisor(s) need to understand industry standards and practices, and proactively participate in those efforts that are required for the Division to operate to industry standards. To do that the Field Services Supervisor(s) will need to receive appropriate training.

The current City job classification for the Field Services Supervisor (and the other solid waste management positions) are not specific to the Division’s solid waste operations. Solid waste specific job classifications and descriptions need to be drafted that clearly establish roles and responsibilities for safety, customer service, and operational performance respective of the solid waste operation. This is particularly important for the Field Services Supervisor position, with all current and future Field Services Supervisors receiving training in support of their job responsibilities.

The Division needs additional solid waste specific management/supervisory staffing to support both the management of daily operations, and operational improvements.

That staffing need could potentially be met by an additional Field Services Supervisor, with industry standard operating experience, or a new solid waste dedicated management position that reports to the Field Services Superintendent (e.g., Assistant Solid Waste Superintendent).
e) Administrative Analyst
The Division does not currently have dedicated analytical support staff. The tracking and analysis of data, which is fundamental to the Division’s ability to effectively manage and improve operations, is largely the responsibility of the Field Services Superintendent. The Field Services Superintendent needs to focus on directing and Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

improving the Division’s operations and the City’s solid waste management system, not the daily management of front-line staff, or the management and analysis of data. f) Maintenance Staffing
Fleet Services currently has 6 mechanics on staff, but only 1 dedicated mechanic (and 1 that is flexed as needed) at a given time that work regularly on solid waste vehicles, which is simply not enough for a fleet of approximately 30 vehicles. The industry standard typically ranges from 7 to 11 vehicles per mechanic. Field Services currently only provides preventative maintenance and brake work for solid waste vehicles while outsourcing most repairs to a third-party company.

At least one additional solid waste vehicle dedicated mechanic is warranted, however our understanding is that at this time there is not a sufficient number of vehicle maintenance bays to accommodate an additional dedicated mechanic. The Rate Model Capital Reserve Fund (RM 4) provides for $200,000 annually over 10 years to fund office and maintenance facility expansion, which would provide the facility infrastructure needed to support an additional solid waste vehicle dedicated mechanic.9 Table 4, on the following page, provides high level cost estimates of recommended additional Division resources, but does not currently provide for an additional mechanic position, which may need to be reconsidered pending the ability of the Fleet Services facilities to support that additional position.

Recommendations:

T. The Rate Modeling that was performed for the Division provides funding for the additional resources listed in Table 4 to support industry standard operations. Those resources include an additional Supervisor (or higher solid waste dedicated management position), one addition residential route (truck and driver), and a data analyst. It is recommended that the City approve the rate adjustments needed to fund those additional resources.
9 Note: One repair bay that is contractually obligated to the Burton Unified School District (BUSD) under a contract that expires in August 2023.

Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report Table 4

12. The Division Needs Additional Resources to Comply with SB 1383 and Other Regulatory Requirements
a) AB 341 and AB 1826
CalRecycle informed the City on March 5, 2020 that it will not be referred to CalRecycle’s Jurisdictional Compliance Unit for non-compliance with AB 341:

Mandatory Commercial Recycling (MCR), and AB 1826: Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (MORe). However, CalRecycle noted several significant gaps in the implementation of the City MCR and MORe programs that the City needs to address.

In addition, the City needs to comply with SB 1383, which expands residential and commercial organic material diversion requirements, and becomes effective January 1, 2022.
b) SB 1383
SB 1383 (Short-lived Climate Pollutants) represents the most sweeping solid waste management legislation in 30 years. The City will need to enhance its residential and commercial collection systems to provide for the collection of organic material (e.g., food waste, yard waste) from all residential and commercial accounts which started January 1, 2022, and meet the other SB 1383 requirements, including public education and outreach, cart colors and labeling, reporting, and regulatory monitoring and enforcement.

Recommendations:

U. The Rate Modeling that was performed for the Division provides funding for the following additional resources listed in Table 5, on the following page, to support SB 1383 (and AB 341 & AB 1826). It is recommended that the City approve the required rate adjustments to fund the necessary resources.

One-Time Ongoing
One (1) Supervisor $80,000
One (1) Route (Truck-Driver-O&M) $150,000
Overtime Savings -$42,000
One (1) Data Analyst $90,000
Develop/Implement Safety Program $50,000 $50,000
Customer Database Software/Program $400,000 $120,000
Operational Consulting Services $100,000
Totals $450,000 $548,000
High-Level Cost Estimates - Operational Improvement
Required Resource
Cost
Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Table 5

13. Establish Fair Day Work Standards for Collection Operations Fundamental to the Division’s achieving reasonable levels of productivity is establishing daily workload standards for the residential, commercial and roll-off collection systems that are safe, fair and reasonable. The Division should review, and as appropriate revise its workload standards for its residential collection system. The residential collection system then needs to be rerouted based on that standard with an objective of balancing the total daily workload among each of the daily routes. If the City wishes to implement same day service that should be done in conjunction with rerouting the residential collection system. A similar type of review should be done for the Division’s commercial collection operations.

Evaluation of work standards and developing fair day work standards is a straightforward process in theory. The amount of work which a collection crew can be expected to accomplish in a full day of work depends upon how much time is available for collection and how long it takes to service a typical account. By identifying each of the non-collection (off-route) daily tasks and determining an accurate time requirement for each of those tasks the total time available for collection can be determined:
[Total time in the day] – [Time required for non-collection tasks] = [Total time available for collection]
By dividing the total time available for collection by the average time required to service an account, the total number of accounts which a typical route should be capable of servicing in One-Time Ongoing
Organics Processing $520,000
City Municipal Ordinance (1) $18,000 $0
Procurement Requirements $25,000 $56,000
SB 1383 Program Coordinator $95,000
One (1) Code Enforcement Officer $83,000
One (1) Organics Route (truck-driver-O&M) $150,000
One (1) Recycling Route (truck-driver-O&M) $150,000
Organics Processing $52,000
City Municipal Ordinance (1) $18,000 $0
Edible Food Waste Recovery $40,000 $100,000
One (1) Code Enforcement Officer covered above
Totals $101,000 $1,206,000
High-Level Cost Estimates - SB 1383 Compliance
Required Resource
Cost
Residential
Commercial
Operational
Review

City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIOAL REVIEW| FINAL Report a full day of work can be determined. Routes can then be designed around that targeted standard number of accounts per route per day.10
The goal is not to make collection crews work harder or faster but to quantify the amount of work which should reasonably be expected from a crew, and assure that the existing system work standard is consistent with this reasonable expectation. Once an appropriate standard has been established and implemented, the focus should shift to identifying and implementing changes to the operation which will:

1. Increase the amount of time on route / decreasing non-productive time; and

2. Decrease the amount of time required to service an account.

Reductions in the amount of time required to service an account may be realized through training, more effective routing, improved equipment specifications, revised service levels and other means. Increases in the time available for collection may be realized by reducing disposal site turn-around times, revising pre and post trip requirements or methods, revising work scheduling (e.g., earlier collection hours, four ten-hour days), revising union contract terms (e.g., non-paid lunch) or other actions. To translate any increases to the amount of onroute time or decreases to the amount of time required to service an account to the bottom line the fair day work standard needs to be adjusted accordingly and the system rerouted to the new standard.

Attachment D provides an initial fair days’ work analysis. The City can use this analysis as a starting point revising overall and individual route workloads to account for the specifics of individual routes, as appropriate. Row 100 shows the calculated number of routes required while Row 102 shows the actual number. In the case of the yard waste and recycling routes, the participation rate (row 38) has been set at the weekly setout percentage that results in the calculated number of routes equal to the actual number (i.e., 55% for green waste and 41% for recycling). These figures should be revised as appropriate based on actual participation rates, with green waste routes potentially adjusted to reflect seasonal changes in participation rates.

Based on the data inputs shown, a total of 7.6 daily solid waste routes are required to service the daily workload versus the 7 actual daily routes. This analysis assumes 3 legal loads per day while the reported tonnages would require a 4th load each day (Row 48) to keep loads at or below the legal load weight, which would increase the number of required routes. The use of the Woodville Landfill versus the Tea Pot Dome Landfill would increase the calculated number of routes slightly due to the additional travel time per load.

Note: The above analysis is based on a system at 100% capacity (i.e., the number of routes provides the capacity needed to service the workload within the exact number of available hours). In practice, the collection system will typically be over or under capacity depending on growth, but in either case routes should be adjusted so that the workloads are not unreasonably high or low. In the case of systems that are over capacity overtime may be required until it makes sense to add an additional route. 10 For fully automated residential collection system we suggest that a productivity benchmark of 2.5 accounts per on-route minute (24 seconds per account) be used as an initial target. Additional review may be warranted to refine that target.

Operational
Review
City of Porterville, CA | SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REVIEW | FINAL Report

Recommendations:

V. Establish Fair Day Work Standards for the residential collection system and reroute the residential collection system to the established standard. This should be done in conjunction with the shift to same day service if the City decides to pursue that option.

W. “Right size” commercial service levels and minimize weekly trash, recycling and organics collection service frequency system after SB 1383 commercial recycling and organics collection programs are fully implemented. Establish a Fair Day Work Standards for the commercial SB 1383 collection system and reroute the collection system to the established standard.

14. Work Schedule / Planned Overtime
Division route drivers currently work four days per week, 10 hours per day (4x10), versus a more standard five day per week, 8 hour per day (5x8) schedule. The major potential benefit of a 10-hour day is the potential to increase productivity by maximizing the number of accounts collected each day without requiring an additional load. Typically, there are perhaps five (5) hours per day of productive on-route time during the course of an 8-hour day (~60% daily productivity hours), with breaks/lunch, pre- and post-trip requirements and travel time to and from the processing facility/transfer station/landfill and route all requiring time that is not available for collection. If, however, additional time is available to collect more accounts without requiring another load (which generates additional non-productive time) that additional collection time is 100 percent productive (as compared to 60% average daily productive hours). A 4x10 hour schedule is advantageous if it generates more time on route per week for the system than a 5x8 schedule, and vice versa. Within each of those systems, increases in daily productive hours can be realized with the use of planned overtime to allow routes to complete a full final load each day.

Recommendations:

X. In conjunction with any rerouting of the residential collection system, evaluate the current 4x10 schedule versus a 5x10 schedule, and the potential benefits of planned overtime within each of those work schedules.

15. The Division Does Not Have Comprehensive Documented Policies and Procedures
The Division does not have documented policies and procedures, or formal operational standards for drivers, and as such no means for training drivers to specific objective standards or holding them accountable for performance.11 Having an adequate body of policies and procedures that address key areas of operations and management expectations is essential to the effective management of any organization. Key policies and procedures need to be documented, performance standards need to be (re)established, and staff held accountable for performance, both positive and negative.
11 Accountability must be present and enforced as needed, to all employees, without discrimination.

Operational
Review