water & wastewater rate survey
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON
WATER & WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Foreword The 2016 Washington/Oregon Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) provides a description of water and wastewater rates and charges in the states of Washington and Oregon. RFC conducts a biennial national water and wastewater rate survey in partnership with the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a nonprofit professional association dedicated to providing high-quality technical information to its water utility members and general public. RFC also conducts a biennial water rate survey in California and Nevada in collaboration with the California-Nevada section of AWWA, as well as water rate surveys in Florida and Arizona. RFC is nationally recognized for its financial and management consulting practice for water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities. The 2016 survey provides valuable insights into pricing practices embraced by utilities across Washington and Oregon. Specifically included in this year’s survey are: »» A total of 66 Washington water and wastewater agencies and 50 Oregon agencies with diverse ownership and operating characteristics »» Rate calculations and pertinent data grouped by county and sorted by city This survey is also a powerful tool for comparative benchmarking. Drawing conclusions from rate comparisons, however, should be done only after evaluating several community characteristics, such as geography, climate, and service area, as well as the use of taxes, subsidies, and grants. The determinants of utility rates are varied and complex and do not necessarily reflect the true cost of service. A low rate or a high rate does not necessarily mean that a utility is more or less efficient, respectively. As a result, the survey findings alone should not be used to judge the performance of any individual utility or to generalize about all water-sector utilities. In addition, our rate survey uses a sample that is not statistically random. Even with these constraints, the information contained in this survey is beneficial to utilities throughout Washington and Oregon. At a minimum, it can be used to identify utilities that have similar characteristics to include in a more in-depth benchmarking effort. The reliability of the information received for this survey is dependent upon the accuracy of the data we collected from the agencies. Please notify us if you have any updates or corrections to the information. Sincerely, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Sudhir Pardiwala, PE Executive Vice President
Hannah Phan Senior Consultant
1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98109 / P: 714.300.8129 / F: 213.262.9303 /
www.raftelis.com
CONTENTS Sections
Figures
01
05
FIGURE A: 2015 Water Billing Frequency
05
FIGURE B: 2015 Water Rate Structure
05
FIGURE C: Rate Update Frequency
06
FIGURE D: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County
07
FIGURE E: 2015 Wastewater Billing Frequency
07
FIGURE F: 2015 Wastewater Rate Structure
07
FIGURE G: Rate Update Frequency
08
FIGURE H: 2015 Average Monthly Wastewater Charges Comparison by County
10
FIGURE I: 2015 Water Billing Frequency
10
FIGURE J: 2015 Water Rate Structure
10
FIGURE K: Rate Update Frequency
11
FIGURE L: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County
12
FIGURE M: 2015 Wastewater Billing Frequency
12
FIGURE N: 2015 Wastewater Rate Structure
12
FIGURE O: Rate Update Frequency
13
FIGURE P: 2015 Average Monthly Wastewater Charges Comparison by County
FACTORS AFFECTING RATES
03 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY 04 WASHINGTON RATE SURVEY RESULTS 09 OREGON RATE SURVEY RESULTS 14
APPENDIX A: WASHINGTON/ OREGON SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
PHOTO CREDITS: Cover, Chris Campbell (Flickr) | Foreword, Tiffany Von Armin (Flickr) | Contents, Kirt Edblom (Flickr) | p.03, Donnie Ray Jones (Flickr) | p.03, Nicolas Vigier (Flickr) | p.05, Tiffany Von Armin (Flickr) | p.11, Rachel Samany (Flickr) | Back Cover, Jim Bowen (Flickr)
{ 01 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Factors Affecting Rates
Growing Infrastructure Needs
Increasing Regulatory Stringency
Decreasing Per Capita Consumption
Technological Improvements
Because water and wastewater rates are of immense public interest, legislative bodies entrusted with reviewing and approving rates are very sensitive to adjusting rates. From our work with many waterindustry utilities, we have identified six factors that can affect water and wastewater rates and charges. Half of these factors are driving water and wastewater rates higher, while the other half have a lowering effect on rates. Because the factors that are increasing rates have had a much greater impact in recent years, water and wastewater rates have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation.
Effective Utility Management
Political Actions
The following page describes each factor, how it influences rates, and its expected impact over the next 5 to 10 years. It should be noted that these are not the only factors affecting rates, but those that we believe are particularly relevant to water and wastewater utilities.
{ 02 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
GROWING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: Much of the original water infrastructure in the
Northwestern United States is going to need replacement in the near future. In many cases, this will be the first time that utilities will face significant capital needs that are not funded by growth in the customer base. In addition, this existing infrastructure repair and replacement will likely be more costly than placing comparable new infrastructure in service in undeveloped areas. This factor is going to significantly impact utilities in the coming years and will likely be a major driver of rate increases.
INCREASING REGULATORY STRINGENCY: While it is unclear how water regulations
will be promulgated in the future, it is our expectation that standards will continue to become more stringent. As the ability to measure water quality improves and technology for producing “cleaner” potable water and effluent advances, regulations will inevitably follow, and utilities will need to spend resources to acquire the new technology and/or reconfigure existing treatment processes. We believe that increasing regulatory stringency driven by these advances in technology will drive rates higher.
DECREASING PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION: An increasing number of the utilities that we serve are facing declining per capita consumption. We believe there are two primary reasons for this trend. The first reason is that each generation of new home appliances is characterized by increasing water efficiency. The second reason is that the conservation message has been internalized by much of the population. Nowadays, while we brush our teeth or shave our face, many of us don’t let the water run like we once did. We believe this shift has been accomplished through public education efforts and often reinforced by the pricing structure. In addition, many utilities have faced droughts or capacity issues due to growth, which has forced additional efforts to reduce per capita consumption. We believe that while this factor will continue to impact rates in the future, its impact will diminish over time because there is a level below which per capita consumption will not drop. TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS: As we mentioned earlier, water and wastewa-
ter treatment technology is constantly improving. Certain technological improvements have a lowering impact on rates. Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems allow for operations with fewer employees and help to minimize power loads. As a result, the cost of producing potable water and treating wastewater is decreasing with all other variables remaining the same. We believe technology will continue to improve and benefit customers.
EFFECTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT: Municipal utilities no longer see themselves as gov-
ernmental monopolies. Elected officials and governing boards increasingly require utilities to operate as efficiently as possible. The growth of contractor operations has also caused utilities to become more efficient. In fact, many utilities have gone through some sort of formal optimization process. We believe that these efforts will continue to have a lowering effect on water rates.
POLITICAL ACTIONS: The strongest force in limiting rate increases has been the political
process. Whereas optimization efforts are beneficial to the utility, politically limited rate increases may not be. It would be unfair to say that political influence does not have some positive effects, as it does often force utilities to be as efficient as possible. However, when a rate increase is obviously needed and that increase is not allowed due to political issues, there can be severe future ramifications. We believe this will continue to have a significant impact on limiting rate increases.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Overview of the Survey The survey provides data on 116 water and wastewater service providers (66 in Washington and 50 in Oregon). Because water usage varies widely among cities and regions, a benchmark water usage amount is needed to provide a basis to compare water and wastewater rates. This survey relies on 15 ccf (hundred cubic feet), or 11,220 gallons, of water consumption per month and 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, of wastewater flow as that benchmark.
{ 03 }
{ 04 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
SURVEY 56 AGENCIES IN WASHINGTON REPORTED WATER RATES IN THE 2016 SURVEY, AND 55 AGENCIES REPORTED WASTEWATER RATES.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
{ 05 }
{ 06 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure A, 49% of the agencies in our sample bill monthly, and roughly 51% have a bi-monthly rate structure. In our experience, monthly billing is becoming more popular as it helps convey information on consumption and pricing to the agency’s customer base faster. Also, as rates increase and bills get larger, customers may find it easier to pay smaller monthly bills than larger bi-monthly bills.
FIGURE A:
2015 WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Bi-Monthly 51%
Monthly 49%
WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure B demonstrates that inclining and uniform rate structures combine to constitute approximately 93% (35% uniform and 58% inclining) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey. The “other” category includes rate structures such as flat and seasonal. While uniform, inclining, and declining rate structures are well known and have been in use by agencies for many years, the number of agencies utilizing water budget-based rate structures is increasing, especially in agencies that target water conservation and efficiency. Water budget-based rate structures are a type of inclining rate structure in which the block definition is different for each customer based on an efficient level of water use by that customer. The tiers are typically set based on efficient indoor and outdoor use allocations. Please contact RFC if you need additional information on rate structures.
FIGURE B:
2015 WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Uniform 35%
Inclining 58%
WATER CHARGES
Figure C displays the year in which the 2016 survey’s utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 83%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015).
Declining 5%
As mentioned previously, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility residential customer uses 15 ccf1, or 11,220 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 15 ccf per month usage. It should be noted that the average usage can vary significantly from agency to agency. Thus, an agency with a lower average usage than 15 ccf per month will have higher bills since the rate structure of that agency was designed for their level of usage. Figure D shows the average monthly water charges for 15 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Island County, while the lowest charges are in Spokane County. Only one agency responded for Island County. 1
1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons of water
Other 2%
FIGURE C:
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 71% Not Reported 12% Prior to 2012 2% 2012 0%
2014 12% 2013 3%
{ 07 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE D:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Spokane
Average Fixed
Average Fixed Average Variable
Franklin
Average Variable
Clark Yakima Benton Chelan Kittitas Grays Harbor Pierce Whatcom Kitsap Whitman Thurston Cowlitz Snohomish Walla Walla Clallam Lewis King Skagit Island $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
*For Spokane County, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
{ 08 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE E:
2015 WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 46%
Bi-Monthly 54%
FIGURE F:
FIGURE G:
2015 WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
Fixed and Variable 38%
Not Reported 14%
Fixed Only 62% Prior to 2012 4%
2012 0% Other 0%
2015 68%
2014 9%
2013 5%
Not Reported 0%
WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure E, 46% of the agencies in our sample bill monthly, and roughly 54% have a bi-monthly rate structure.
clear majority of respondents, 77%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015).
WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
As mentioned previously, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility residential customer uses 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 8 ccf per month usage.
WASTEWATER CHARGES
Figure H shows the average monthly wastewater charges for 8 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Lewis County, while the lowest charges are in Benton County. Only one agency responded for Lewis County.
Figure F demonstrates that fixed rate structures and fixed and variable rate structures combine to constitute 100% (62% fixed only and 38% fixed and variable) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey.
Figure G displays the year in which the 2016 survey’s utilities have most recently updated their rates. A
{ 09 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE H:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTEWATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Benton
Average Fixed
Average Fixed
Chelan
Average Variable
Average Variable
Franklin Kittitas Grays Harbor Clark Whatcom Spokane Whitman Yakima Walla Walla Skagit Thurston Island Snohomish Pierce Kitsap Clallam Cowlitz King Lewis $-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
*For King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
{ 10 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
SURVEY 41 AGENCIES IN OREGON REPORTED WATER RATES IN THE 2016 SURVEY, AND 41 AGENCIES REPORTED WASTEWATER RATES.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
{ 11 }
{ 12 }
WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure I, a large majority, 81%, of the utility survey’s respondents has a monthly billing structure. Monthly billing is predominantly becoming more popular as it helps convey information on consumption and pricing to the agency’s customer base faster. Also, as rates increase and bills get larger, customers may find it easier to pay smaller monthly bills than larger bi-monthly bills.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE I:
2015 WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 81%
WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure J demonstrates that inclining and uniform rate structures combine to constitute approximately 93% (48% uniform and 45% inclining) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey. While uniform, inclining, and declining rate structures are well known and have been in use by agencies for many years, the number of agencies utilizing water budget-based rate structures is increasing, especially in agencies that target water conservation and efficiency. Water budget-based rate structures are a type of inclining rate structure in which the block definition is different for each customer based on an efficient level of water use by that customer. The tiers are typically set based upon efficient indoor and outdoor use allocations. Please contact RFC if you need additional information on rate structures.
Bi-Monthly 17% Quarterly 2%
FIGURE J:
2015 WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Inclining 45%
Uniform 48%
WATER CHARGES
Figure K displays the year in which the 2016 survey's utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 81%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015). As in the Washington Rate Survey Results section, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility customer uses 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 15 ccf per month usage. It should be noted that the average usage can vary significantly from agency to agency. Thus, an agency with a lower average usage than 15 ccf per month will have higher bills since the rate structure of that agency was designed for their level of usage. Figure L shows the average monthly water charges for 15 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Columbia County, while the lowest charges are in Malheur County. Only one agency responded for Columbia County.
Declining 7%
FIGURE K:
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 76%
Not Reported 7% Prior to 2012 7% 2012 2%
2013 2%
2014 5%
*Sums in Figure K do not add to 100% due to rounding
{ 13 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE L:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Malheur
AverageFixed Fixed Average
Umatilla
Average AverageVariable Variable
Josephine Douglas Union Marion Polk Lane Jackson Benton Deschutes Clackamas Yamhill Coos Multnomah Lincoln Washington Linn Columbia $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
*For Multnomah County, utilities with no fixed charge were not included in "average fixed" charge calculation.
{ 14 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE M:
2015 WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 86%
Bi-Monthly 12% Quarterly 2%
FIGURE N:
FIGURE O:
2015 WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 78%
Fixed and Variable 64% Fixed Only 34%
Not Reported 7% Prior to 2012 3%
Other 2%
Not Reported 0%
WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure M, a large majority, 86%, of the utility survey’s respondents has a monthly billing structure.
WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure N demonstrates that fixed rate structures and fixed and variable rate structures combine to constitute 98% (34% fixed only and 64% fixed and variable) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey.
WASTEWATER CHARGES
Figure O displays the year in which the 2016 survey's
2012 0%
2014 12% 2013 0%
utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 90%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015). As in the Washington section, all charges below are based on the assumption that the utility customer uses 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 8 ccf per month usage. Figure P shows the average monthly wastewater charges for 8 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Multnomah County, while the lowest charges are in Umatilla County.
{ 15 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE P:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTEWATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Umatilla
Average Fixed Average Fixed Average Variable Average Variable
Josephine Union Jackson Benton Malheur Washington Polk Lane Marion Deschutes Columbia Lincoln Clackamas Linn Yamhill Coos Multnomah $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
*For Multnomah County, utilities with no fixed charge were not included in "average fixed" charge calculation. **For Union, Umatilla, Polk, Clackamas, Jackson, Malheur, and Multnomah Counties, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
City of Auburn
City of Bellevue
Pasco
Aberdeen
Oak Harbor
Auburn
Bellevue
FRANKLIN
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
KING
Cedar River Water & Sewer District
City of Mercer Island
City of Redmond
City of Renton
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
King County Water District #125
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle Public Utilities
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
Seatac
Seattle
Shoreline
Bi-Monthly
City of Kent
Kent
City of Kirkland
Northshore Utility District
Kenmore
Covington Water District
City of Issaquah
Issaquah
Kirkland
Lakehaven Utility District
Federal Way
Maple Valley
Bi-Monthly
Highline Water District
Des Moines
1/1/2014
1/1/2014
2/21/2015
7/20/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
11/18/2014
3/6/2015
12/1/2014
3/15/2015
12/1/2011
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
3/6/2015
Covington Water District
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Covington
1/1/2015
City of Bothell
Highline Water District
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
Bothell
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/20/2014
10/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Burien
City of Oak Harbor
City of Aberdeen
City of Pasco
City of Longview
City of Vancouver
Vancouver
Longview
COWLITZ
City of Port Angeles
CLARK
Port Angeles
CLALLAM
City of Wenatchee's Water Resource Division
City of Richland
Richland
Wenatchee
City of Kennewick
Water Service Provider
Kennewick
City
CHELAN
BENTON
County
16.70
13.75
13.00
25.89
17.60
13.80
13.20
16.23
21.50
19.05
13.10
15.00
12.78
12.35
14.40
21.50
14.40
12.01
20.10
15.05
25.50
31.58
16.25
11.45
6.35
29.26
10.68
27.25
10.27
Fixed Charge
90.75
74.85
54.06
33.60
52.12
52.70
74.05
55.35
67.85
63.70
55.60
63.75
81.35
31.73
53.25
67.85
53.25
51.50
63.57
50.13
76.20
7.56
10.50
39.02
26.70
41.35
25.95
14.25
17.51
Commodity Charge*
Washington Water Survey Participants
107.45
88.60
67.06
59.49
69.72
66.50
87.25
71.58
89.35
82.75
68.70
78.75
94.13
44.08
67.65
89.35
67.65
63.51
83.67
65.18
101.70
39.14
26.75
50.47
33.05
70.61
36.63
41.50
27.78
Total Charge
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Rate Format
{ 16 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Lakewood Water District
City of Puyallup
Tacoma Public Utilities
Skagit Public Utility District
City of Arlington
Edmonds Utilities
City of Everett
Snohomish County Public Utility District
City of Lynnwood
City of Marysville
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
City of Monroe
Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District
Bonney Lake
Lakewood
Puyallup
Tacoma
Mount Vernon
Arlington
Edmonds
Everett
Lake Stevens
Lynnwood
Marysville
Mill Creek
Monroe
Mukilteo
PIERCE
SKAGIT
SNOHOMISH
City of Sunnyside
City of Yakima
Pullman
Sunnyside
Yakima
WHITMAN
YAKIMA
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
11/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2014
10/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
10/1/2013
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/15/2013
1/1/2015
4/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month
City of Pullman
City of Bellingham
Bellingham
City of Walla Walla
Walla Walla
City of Tumwater
Tumwater
WHATCOM
City of Olympia
Olympia
Vera Water & Power
Spokane Valley
City of Lacey
Modern Electric Water Company
Spokane Valley
Lacey
City of Spokane
Spokane
City of Centralia
WALLA WALLA
THURSTON
SPOKANE
City of Bonney Lake
Centralia
LEWIS
City of Ellensburg
Ellensburg
City of Bremerton
Bremerton
City of Tukwila
Tukwila
KITTITAS
North City Water District
Water Service Provider
Shoreline
City
KITSAP
KING
County
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
8.77
16.88
24.25
15.42
32.90
7.32
10.96
13.41
16.00
10.95
14.92
11.70
22.92
14.95
10.90
19.38
21.64
18.95
13.16
32.15
22.35
19.60
8.16
14.79
14.71
19.51
21.17
12.11
16.00
25.71
Fixed Charge
21.90
19.35
22.00
25.05
25.50
35.73
46.67
32.46
0.00
6.00
8.19
35.86
30.25
35.20
36.92
22.20
49.65
37.90
41.10
36.08
52.91
24.68
35.51
16.98
24.25
53.40
17.93
31.35
42.00
59.37
Commodity Charge*
30.67
36.23
46.25
40.47
58.40
43.05
57.63
45.87
16.00
16.95
23.11
47.56
53.17
50.15
47.82
41.58
71.29
56.85
54.26
68.23
75.26
44.28
43.67
31.77
38.96
72.91
39.10
43.46
58.00
85.08
Total Charge
Uniform
Declining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Other
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 17 }
1/1/2015 7/20/2015
City of Auburn
City of Bellevue
City of Bothell
Southwest Suburban Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
Midway Sewer District
Lakehaven Utility District
City of Issaquah
Northshore Utility District
City of Kent
City of Kirkland
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
City of Mercer Island
City of Redmond
City of Renton
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
Valley View Sewer District
Seattle Public Utilities
Ronald Wastewater District
Longview
Pasco
Aberdeen
Oak Harbor
Auburn
Bellevue
Bothell
Burien
Covington
Des Moines
Federal Way
Issaquah
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
Seatac
Seattle
Shoreline
COWLITZ
FRANKLIN
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
KING
City of Oak Harbor
City of Aberdeen
City of Pasco
City of Longview
City of Vancouver
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/1/2014
1/1/2015
3/15/2015
12/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/20/2014
10/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
Vancouver
1/1/2015
CLARK
City of Port Angeles
Port Angeles
1/1/2010
CLALLAM
City of Wenatchee's Water Resource Division
City of Richland
Richland
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Wenatchee
City of Kennewick
Water Service Provider
Kennewick
City
CHELAN
BENTON
County
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
53.50
11.84
54.05
74.22
70.26
55.93
59.15
59.53
55.05
60.71
56.70
43.76
12.41
25.00
59.53
29.50
56.76
42.03
65.72
57.50
35.37
24.80
31.85
13.47
71.45
23.92
25.60
21.22
Fixed Charge
0.00
82.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.55
0.00
21.70
0.00
1.88
17.36
36.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.56
29.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.32
22.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Commodity Charge*
Washington Wastewater Survey Participants
53.50
94.72
54.05
74.22
70.26
55.93
87.70
59.53
76.75
60.71
58.58
61.12
49.21
25.00
59.53
29.50
79.32
71.15
65.72
57.50
35.37
24.80
72.17
35.92
71.45
23.92
25.60
21.22
Total Charge
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Rate Format
{ 18 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
City of Bonney Lake
Pierce County
City of Puyallup
City of Tacoma
Ellensburg
Centralia
Bonney Lake
Lakewood
Puyallup
Tacoma
KITTITAS
LEWIS
PIERCE
City of Marysville
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
City of Monroe
Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District
Marysville
Mill Creek
Monroe
Mukilteo
City of Sunnyside
City of Yakima
Pullman
Sunnyside
Yakima
WHITMAN
YAKIMA
1/1/2014
1/1/2010
11/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
10/1/2013
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/15/2013
1/1/2013
1/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/2/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 8 ccf, or 5,984 thousand gallons, per month
City of Pullman
City of Bellingham
Bellingham
WHATCOM
City of Tumwater
Tumwater
City of Walla Walla
City of Olympia
Olympia
Walla Walla
City of Lacey
Lacey
WALLA WALLA
THURSTON
Spokane County Utilities
City of Lynnwood
Lynnwood
Spokane Valley
Lake Stevens Sewer District
Lake Stevens
City of Spokane
City of Everett
Everett
Spokane
Edmonds Utilities
Edmonds
SPOKANE
City of Arlington
Arlington
SNOHOMISH
City of Mount Vernon
Mount Vernon
SKAGIT
City of Centralia
City of Ellensburg
City of Bremerton
Bremerton
KITSAP
City of Tukwila
Water Service Provider
Tukwila
City
KING
County
20.62
40.65
38.15
37.24
52.10
51.51
55.73
54.10
47.01
28.06
61.86
94.51
54.00
40.60
40.30
80.00
39.25
30.36
70.15
30.65
21.50
16.98
44.18
53.45
63.50
33.26
33.49
71.03
Fixed Charge
24.08
18.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.80
32.40
41.20
0.00
26.56
17.92
0.00
35.92
0.00
Commodity Charge*
44.70
58.70
38.15
37.24
52.10
51.51
55.73
54.10
47.01
28.06
61.86
94.51
54.75
40.60
40.30
80.00
39.25
30.36
70.15
53.45
53.90
58.18
44.18
80.01
81.42
33.26
69.41
71.03
Total Charge
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 19 }
City of Lake Oswego
City of Milwaukie
City of Oregon City
City of West Linn
City of Wilsonville
Lake Oswego
Milwaukie
Oregon City
West Linn
Wilsonville
City of Ashland
Medford Water Commission
Roseburg
Ashland
Medford
DOUGLAS
JACKSON
7/1/2015
Portland Water Bureau
City of Troutdale
Portland
Troutdale
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
12/1/2006
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/1/2015
3/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2013
7/1/2015
12/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2011
7/1/2015
7/1/2011
11/11/2015
7/1/2014
Effective Date
City of Gresham
City of Woodburn
Woodburn
Gresham
City of Salem
Salem
MULTNOMAH
City of Keizer
Keizer
MARION
City of Ontario
Ontario
MALHEUR
City of Lebanon
Lebanon
City of Newport
City of Albany
Newport
Albany
LINCOLN
Springfield Utility Board
Springfield
LINN
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Eugene
LANE
City of Grants Pass
Grants Pass
JOSEPHINE
City of Roseburg
City of Bend
Coos Bay
Bend
COOS
DESCHUTES
Coos Bay - North Bend Water Board
Sunrise Water Authority
Happy Valley
City of St. Helens
City of Gladstone
Gladstone
St. Helens
Sunrise Water Authority
Damascus
COLUMBIA
Canby Utility
Canby
CLACKAMAS
City of Corvallis
Water Service Provider
Corvallis
City
BENTON
County
Monthly
Quarterly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
0.00
11.91
20.70
12.81
6.32
5.01
10.00
20.00
17.93
20.85
13.80
19.20
17.10
8.00
23.50
9.55
22.02
19.63
10.48
19.56
19.48
14.70
7.15
24.96
14.00
15.80
14.00
19.81
15.04
Fixed Charge
Oregon Water Survey Participants
33.99
59.10
33.90
26.85
38.70
19.50
14.85
69.75
46.71
38.50
23.88
20.92
14.75
7.28
48.22
22.80
27.30
34.69
78.29
42.77
17.92
36.90
48.60
47.35
36.00
15.75
36.00
25.24
29.90
Commodity Charge*
33.99
71.01
54.60
39.66
45.02
24.51
24.85
89.75
64.64
59.35
37.68
40.12
31.85
15.28
71.72
32.35
49.32
54.32
88.77
62.33
37.40
51.60
55.75
72.31
50.00
31.55
50.00
45.05
44.94
Total Charge
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Rate Format
{ 20 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
1/1/2015
10/1/2012
7/1/2015
10/1/2015
7/1/2015
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month
City of Newberg
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tigard
Tualatin
Newberg
City of Sherwood
Sherwood
McMinnville Water & Light
City of Hillsboro
Hillsboro
McMinnville
1/1/2015
City of Forest Grove
Forest Grove
YAMHILL
7/1/2015
City of Cornelius
Cornelius 7/1/2015
City of Beaverton
Beaverton
4/1/2014 8/1/2015
WASHINGTON
City of Pendleton
City of La Grande
La Grande
Pendleton
7/1/2015
6/1/2015
Effective Date
UNION
City of Hermiston
Hermiston
UMATILLA
City of Dallas
Water Service Provider
Dallas
City
POLK
County
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
11.48
12.11
7.34
25.83
19.49
13.71
22.04
25.85
13.00
23.14
18.15
17.14
16.90
Fixed Charge
55.95
23.05
39.00
63.96
59.40
31.63
26.79
47.10
44.55
12.00
17.25
10.40
21.84
Commodity Charge*
67.43
35.16
46.34
89.79
78.89
45.34
48.83
72.95
57.55
35.14
35.40
27.54
38.74
Total Charge
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Declining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 21 }
City of Ashland
Rogue Valley Sewer Services
City of Medford
Ashland
Central Point
Medford
City of Albany
City of Lebanon
Springfield
Newport
Albany
Lebanon
LANE
LINCOLN
LINN
City of Gresham
Bureau of Environmental Services
City of Troutdale
Portland
Troutdale
City of Woodburn
Woodburn
Gresham
City of Salem
Salem
MULTNOMAH
City of Keizer
Keizer
MARION
City of Ontario
Ontario
MALHEUR
City of Newport
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Eugene
LANE
City of Grants Pass
Grants Pass
JOSEPHINE
City of Bend
City of Coos Bay
JACKSON
City of Wilsonville
Wilsonville
Bend
City of West Linn
West Linn
DESCHUTES
City of Oregon City
Oregon City
Coos Bay
City of Milwaukie
Milwaukie
COOS
City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego
City of St. Helens
Clackamas County Service District # 1
Happy Valley
St. Helens
City of Gladstone
Gladstone
COLUMBIA
City of Canby
Canby
CLACKAMAS
City of Corvallis
Water Service Provider
Corvallis
City
BENTON
County
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/15/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
12/1/2015
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
11/1/2008
7/1/2015
7/1/2014
Effective Date
Monthly
Quarterly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
35.73
0.00
27.49
44.64
16.59
12.60
40.27
22.98
37.38
22.90
12.33
12.33
13.62
17.82
18.30
27.41
32.24
18.86
15.27
19.84
36.08
49.83
37.21
51.25
43.50
11.65
46.20
17.24
Fixed Charge
0.00
76.00
0.00
25.95
25.84
26.64
0.00
52.56
21.08
39.60
40.74
27.26
16.68
0.00
0.00
16.36
27.04
54.08
46.92
53.10
0.00
0.00
21.76
15.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.92
Commodity Charge*
Oregon Wastewater Survey Participants
35.73
76.00
27.49
70.59
42.43
39.24
40.27
75.54
58.46
62.50
53.07
39.59
30.30
17.82
18.30
43.77
59.28
72.94
62.18
72.94
36.08
49.83
58.97
66.37
43.50
11.65
46.20
39.16
Total Charge
Fixed Only
Other
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Rate Format
{ 22 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tigard
Tualatin
1/1/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
8/1/2015
4/1/2014
7/1/2015
6/1/2015
Effective Date
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month
City of Newberg
City of Sherwood
Sherwood
Newberg
City of Hillsboro
Hillsboro
City of McMinnville
City of Forest Grove
Forest Grove
McMinnville
City of Cornelius
Cornelius
YAMHILL
City of Beaverton
Beaverton
WASHINGTON
City of La Grande
La Grande
City of Pendleton
Pendleton
UNION
City of Hermiston
Hermiston
UMATILLA
City of Dallas
Water Service Provider
Dallas
City
POLK
County
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
19.43
17.73
27.44
26.63
27.27
26.63
30.55
33.97
28.63
37.34
30.45
23.56
43.93
Fixed Charge
62.16
40.64
14.66
14.16
14.16
14.16
14.20
14.22
14.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Commodity Charge*
81.59
58.37
42.10
40.79
41.43
40.79
44.75
48.19
42.79
37.34
30.45
23.56
43.93
Total Charge
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 23 }
1100 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98109 P: 714.300.8129 / F: 213.262.9303 WWW.RAFTELIS.COM
201 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE, SUITE 301, PASADENA, CA 91101 P: 626.583.1894 | F: 626.583.1411 WWW.RAFTELIS.COM
WATER & WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Foreword The 2016 Washington/Oregon Water and Wastewater Rate Survey conducted by Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) provides a description of water and wastewater rates and charges in the states of Washington and Oregon. RFC conducts a biennial national water and wastewater rate survey in partnership with the American Water Works Association (AWWA), a nonprofit professional association dedicated to providing high-quality technical information to its water utility members and general public. RFC also conducts a biennial water rate survey in California and Nevada in collaboration with the California-Nevada section of AWWA, as well as water rate surveys in Florida and Arizona. RFC is nationally recognized for its financial and management consulting practice for water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities. The 2016 survey provides valuable insights into pricing practices embraced by utilities across Washington and Oregon. Specifically included in this year’s survey are: »» A total of 66 Washington water and wastewater agencies and 50 Oregon agencies with diverse ownership and operating characteristics »» Rate calculations and pertinent data grouped by county and sorted by city This survey is also a powerful tool for comparative benchmarking. Drawing conclusions from rate comparisons, however, should be done only after evaluating several community characteristics, such as geography, climate, and service area, as well as the use of taxes, subsidies, and grants. The determinants of utility rates are varied and complex and do not necessarily reflect the true cost of service. A low rate or a high rate does not necessarily mean that a utility is more or less efficient, respectively. As a result, the survey findings alone should not be used to judge the performance of any individual utility or to generalize about all water-sector utilities. In addition, our rate survey uses a sample that is not statistically random. Even with these constraints, the information contained in this survey is beneficial to utilities throughout Washington and Oregon. At a minimum, it can be used to identify utilities that have similar characteristics to include in a more in-depth benchmarking effort. The reliability of the information received for this survey is dependent upon the accuracy of the data we collected from the agencies. Please notify us if you have any updates or corrections to the information. Sincerely, RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Sudhir Pardiwala, PE Executive Vice President
Hannah Phan Senior Consultant
1100 Dexter Avenue North, Suite 100, Seattle, WA 98109 / P: 714.300.8129 / F: 213.262.9303 /
www.raftelis.com
CONTENTS Sections
Figures
01
05
FIGURE A: 2015 Water Billing Frequency
05
FIGURE B: 2015 Water Rate Structure
05
FIGURE C: Rate Update Frequency
06
FIGURE D: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County
07
FIGURE E: 2015 Wastewater Billing Frequency
07
FIGURE F: 2015 Wastewater Rate Structure
07
FIGURE G: Rate Update Frequency
08
FIGURE H: 2015 Average Monthly Wastewater Charges Comparison by County
10
FIGURE I: 2015 Water Billing Frequency
10
FIGURE J: 2015 Water Rate Structure
10
FIGURE K: Rate Update Frequency
11
FIGURE L: 2015 Average Monthly Water Charges Comparison by County
12
FIGURE M: 2015 Wastewater Billing Frequency
12
FIGURE N: 2015 Wastewater Rate Structure
12
FIGURE O: Rate Update Frequency
13
FIGURE P: 2015 Average Monthly Wastewater Charges Comparison by County
FACTORS AFFECTING RATES
03 OVERVIEW OF THE SURVEY 04 WASHINGTON RATE SURVEY RESULTS 09 OREGON RATE SURVEY RESULTS 14
APPENDIX A: WASHINGTON/ OREGON SURVEY PARTICIPANTS
PHOTO CREDITS: Cover, Chris Campbell (Flickr) | Foreword, Tiffany Von Armin (Flickr) | Contents, Kirt Edblom (Flickr) | p.03, Donnie Ray Jones (Flickr) | p.03, Nicolas Vigier (Flickr) | p.05, Tiffany Von Armin (Flickr) | p.11, Rachel Samany (Flickr) | Back Cover, Jim Bowen (Flickr)
{ 01 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Factors Affecting Rates
Growing Infrastructure Needs
Increasing Regulatory Stringency
Decreasing Per Capita Consumption
Technological Improvements
Because water and wastewater rates are of immense public interest, legislative bodies entrusted with reviewing and approving rates are very sensitive to adjusting rates. From our work with many waterindustry utilities, we have identified six factors that can affect water and wastewater rates and charges. Half of these factors are driving water and wastewater rates higher, while the other half have a lowering effect on rates. Because the factors that are increasing rates have had a much greater impact in recent years, water and wastewater rates have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation.
Effective Utility Management
Political Actions
The following page describes each factor, how it influences rates, and its expected impact over the next 5 to 10 years. It should be noted that these are not the only factors affecting rates, but those that we believe are particularly relevant to water and wastewater utilities.
{ 02 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
GROWING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS: Much of the original water infrastructure in the
Northwestern United States is going to need replacement in the near future. In many cases, this will be the first time that utilities will face significant capital needs that are not funded by growth in the customer base. In addition, this existing infrastructure repair and replacement will likely be more costly than placing comparable new infrastructure in service in undeveloped areas. This factor is going to significantly impact utilities in the coming years and will likely be a major driver of rate increases.
INCREASING REGULATORY STRINGENCY: While it is unclear how water regulations
will be promulgated in the future, it is our expectation that standards will continue to become more stringent. As the ability to measure water quality improves and technology for producing “cleaner” potable water and effluent advances, regulations will inevitably follow, and utilities will need to spend resources to acquire the new technology and/or reconfigure existing treatment processes. We believe that increasing regulatory stringency driven by these advances in technology will drive rates higher.
DECREASING PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION: An increasing number of the utilities that we serve are facing declining per capita consumption. We believe there are two primary reasons for this trend. The first reason is that each generation of new home appliances is characterized by increasing water efficiency. The second reason is that the conservation message has been internalized by much of the population. Nowadays, while we brush our teeth or shave our face, many of us don’t let the water run like we once did. We believe this shift has been accomplished through public education efforts and often reinforced by the pricing structure. In addition, many utilities have faced droughts or capacity issues due to growth, which has forced additional efforts to reduce per capita consumption. We believe that while this factor will continue to impact rates in the future, its impact will diminish over time because there is a level below which per capita consumption will not drop. TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVEMENTS: As we mentioned earlier, water and wastewa-
ter treatment technology is constantly improving. Certain technological improvements have a lowering impact on rates. Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems allow for operations with fewer employees and help to minimize power loads. As a result, the cost of producing potable water and treating wastewater is decreasing with all other variables remaining the same. We believe technology will continue to improve and benefit customers.
EFFECTIVE UTILITY MANAGEMENT: Municipal utilities no longer see themselves as gov-
ernmental monopolies. Elected officials and governing boards increasingly require utilities to operate as efficiently as possible. The growth of contractor operations has also caused utilities to become more efficient. In fact, many utilities have gone through some sort of formal optimization process. We believe that these efforts will continue to have a lowering effect on water rates.
POLITICAL ACTIONS: The strongest force in limiting rate increases has been the political
process. Whereas optimization efforts are beneficial to the utility, politically limited rate increases may not be. It would be unfair to say that political influence does not have some positive effects, as it does often force utilities to be as efficient as possible. However, when a rate increase is obviously needed and that increase is not allowed due to political issues, there can be severe future ramifications. We believe this will continue to have a significant impact on limiting rate increases.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Overview of the Survey The survey provides data on 116 water and wastewater service providers (66 in Washington and 50 in Oregon). Because water usage varies widely among cities and regions, a benchmark water usage amount is needed to provide a basis to compare water and wastewater rates. This survey relies on 15 ccf (hundred cubic feet), or 11,220 gallons, of water consumption per month and 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, of wastewater flow as that benchmark.
{ 03 }
{ 04 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
SURVEY 56 AGENCIES IN WASHINGTON REPORTED WATER RATES IN THE 2016 SURVEY, AND 55 AGENCIES REPORTED WASTEWATER RATES.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
{ 05 }
{ 06 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure A, 49% of the agencies in our sample bill monthly, and roughly 51% have a bi-monthly rate structure. In our experience, monthly billing is becoming more popular as it helps convey information on consumption and pricing to the agency’s customer base faster. Also, as rates increase and bills get larger, customers may find it easier to pay smaller monthly bills than larger bi-monthly bills.
FIGURE A:
2015 WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Bi-Monthly 51%
Monthly 49%
WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure B demonstrates that inclining and uniform rate structures combine to constitute approximately 93% (35% uniform and 58% inclining) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey. The “other” category includes rate structures such as flat and seasonal. While uniform, inclining, and declining rate structures are well known and have been in use by agencies for many years, the number of agencies utilizing water budget-based rate structures is increasing, especially in agencies that target water conservation and efficiency. Water budget-based rate structures are a type of inclining rate structure in which the block definition is different for each customer based on an efficient level of water use by that customer. The tiers are typically set based on efficient indoor and outdoor use allocations. Please contact RFC if you need additional information on rate structures.
FIGURE B:
2015 WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Uniform 35%
Inclining 58%
WATER CHARGES
Figure C displays the year in which the 2016 survey’s utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 83%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015).
Declining 5%
As mentioned previously, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility residential customer uses 15 ccf1, or 11,220 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 15 ccf per month usage. It should be noted that the average usage can vary significantly from agency to agency. Thus, an agency with a lower average usage than 15 ccf per month will have higher bills since the rate structure of that agency was designed for their level of usage. Figure D shows the average monthly water charges for 15 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Island County, while the lowest charges are in Spokane County. Only one agency responded for Island County. 1
1 ccf = 100 cubic feet = 748 gallons of water
Other 2%
FIGURE C:
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 71% Not Reported 12% Prior to 2012 2% 2012 0%
2014 12% 2013 3%
{ 07 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE D:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Spokane
Average Fixed
Average Fixed Average Variable
Franklin
Average Variable
Clark Yakima Benton Chelan Kittitas Grays Harbor Pierce Whatcom Kitsap Whitman Thurston Cowlitz Snohomish Walla Walla Clallam Lewis King Skagit Island $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
*For Spokane County, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
{ 08 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE E:
2015 WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 46%
Bi-Monthly 54%
FIGURE F:
FIGURE G:
2015 WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
Fixed and Variable 38%
Not Reported 14%
Fixed Only 62% Prior to 2012 4%
2012 0% Other 0%
2015 68%
2014 9%
2013 5%
Not Reported 0%
WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure E, 46% of the agencies in our sample bill monthly, and roughly 54% have a bi-monthly rate structure.
clear majority of respondents, 77%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015).
WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
As mentioned previously, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility residential customer uses 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 8 ccf per month usage.
WASTEWATER CHARGES
Figure H shows the average monthly wastewater charges for 8 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Lewis County, while the lowest charges are in Benton County. Only one agency responded for Lewis County.
Figure F demonstrates that fixed rate structures and fixed and variable rate structures combine to constitute 100% (62% fixed only and 38% fixed and variable) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey.
Figure G displays the year in which the 2016 survey’s utilities have most recently updated their rates. A
{ 09 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE H:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTEWATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Benton
Average Fixed
Average Fixed
Chelan
Average Variable
Average Variable
Franklin Kittitas Grays Harbor Clark Whatcom Spokane Whitman Yakima Walla Walla Skagit Thurston Island Snohomish Pierce Kitsap Clallam Cowlitz King Lewis $-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
*For King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
{ 10 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
SURVEY 41 AGENCIES IN OREGON REPORTED WATER RATES IN THE 2016 SURVEY, AND 41 AGENCIES REPORTED WASTEWATER RATES.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
{ 11 }
{ 12 }
WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure I, a large majority, 81%, of the utility survey’s respondents has a monthly billing structure. Monthly billing is predominantly becoming more popular as it helps convey information on consumption and pricing to the agency’s customer base faster. Also, as rates increase and bills get larger, customers may find it easier to pay smaller monthly bills than larger bi-monthly bills.
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE I:
2015 WATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 81%
WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure J demonstrates that inclining and uniform rate structures combine to constitute approximately 93% (48% uniform and 45% inclining) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey. While uniform, inclining, and declining rate structures are well known and have been in use by agencies for many years, the number of agencies utilizing water budget-based rate structures is increasing, especially in agencies that target water conservation and efficiency. Water budget-based rate structures are a type of inclining rate structure in which the block definition is different for each customer based on an efficient level of water use by that customer. The tiers are typically set based upon efficient indoor and outdoor use allocations. Please contact RFC if you need additional information on rate structures.
Bi-Monthly 17% Quarterly 2%
FIGURE J:
2015 WATER RATE STRUCTURE
Inclining 45%
Uniform 48%
WATER CHARGES
Figure K displays the year in which the 2016 survey's utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 81%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015). As in the Washington Rate Survey Results section, all charges in this survey are based on the assumption that the utility customer uses 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 15 ccf per month usage. It should be noted that the average usage can vary significantly from agency to agency. Thus, an agency with a lower average usage than 15 ccf per month will have higher bills since the rate structure of that agency was designed for their level of usage. Figure L shows the average monthly water charges for 15 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Columbia County, while the lowest charges are in Malheur County. Only one agency responded for Columbia County.
Declining 7%
FIGURE K:
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 76%
Not Reported 7% Prior to 2012 7% 2012 2%
2013 2%
2014 5%
*Sums in Figure K do not add to 100% due to rounding
{ 13 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE L:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Malheur
AverageFixed Fixed Average
Umatilla
Average AverageVariable Variable
Josephine Douglas Union Marion Polk Lane Jackson Benton Deschutes Clackamas Yamhill Coos Multnomah Lincoln Washington Linn Columbia $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
*For Multnomah County, utilities with no fixed charge were not included in "average fixed" charge calculation.
{ 14 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE M:
2015 WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
Monthly 86%
Bi-Monthly 12% Quarterly 2%
FIGURE N:
FIGURE O:
2015 WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
RATE UPDATE FREQUENCY
2015 78%
Fixed and Variable 64% Fixed Only 34%
Not Reported 7% Prior to 2012 3%
Other 2%
Not Reported 0%
WASTEWATER BILLING FREQUENCY
As shown in Figure M, a large majority, 86%, of the utility survey’s respondents has a monthly billing structure.
WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE
Figure N demonstrates that fixed rate structures and fixed and variable rate structures combine to constitute 98% (34% fixed only and 64% fixed and variable) of the rate structures among utilities in this year’s survey.
WASTEWATER CHARGES
Figure O displays the year in which the 2016 survey's
2012 0%
2014 12% 2013 0%
utilities have most recently updated their rates. A clear majority of respondents, 90%, have updated their rates within the past two years (2014 and 2015). As in the Washington section, all charges below are based on the assumption that the utility customer uses 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month. For utilities that do not bill monthly, the charge was calculated on the assumption of 8 ccf per month usage. Figure P shows the average monthly wastewater charges for 8 ccf by county. Based on our survey, the highest charges are found in Multnomah County, while the lowest charges are in Umatilla County.
{ 15 }
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
FIGURE P:
2015 AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTEWATER CHARGES COMPARISON BY COUNTY Umatilla
Average Fixed Average Fixed Average Variable Average Variable
Josephine Union Jackson Benton Malheur Washington Polk Lane Marion Deschutes Columbia Lincoln Clackamas Linn Yamhill Coos Multnomah $-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
*For Multnomah County, utilities with no fixed charge were not included in "average fixed" charge calculation. **For Union, Umatilla, Polk, Clackamas, Jackson, Malheur, and Multnomah Counties, utilities with no variable charge were not included in "average variable" charge calculation.
City of Auburn
City of Bellevue
Pasco
Aberdeen
Oak Harbor
Auburn
Bellevue
FRANKLIN
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
KING
Cedar River Water & Sewer District
City of Mercer Island
City of Redmond
City of Renton
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
King County Water District #125
Seattle Public Utilities
Seattle Public Utilities
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
Seatac
Seattle
Shoreline
Bi-Monthly
City of Kent
Kent
City of Kirkland
Northshore Utility District
Kenmore
Covington Water District
City of Issaquah
Issaquah
Kirkland
Lakehaven Utility District
Federal Way
Maple Valley
Bi-Monthly
Highline Water District
Des Moines
1/1/2014
1/1/2014
2/21/2015
7/20/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
11/18/2014
3/6/2015
12/1/2014
3/15/2015
12/1/2011
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
3/6/2015
Covington Water District
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Covington
1/1/2015
City of Bothell
Highline Water District
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
Bothell
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/20/2014
10/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Burien
City of Oak Harbor
City of Aberdeen
City of Pasco
City of Longview
City of Vancouver
Vancouver
Longview
COWLITZ
City of Port Angeles
CLARK
Port Angeles
CLALLAM
City of Wenatchee's Water Resource Division
City of Richland
Richland
Wenatchee
City of Kennewick
Water Service Provider
Kennewick
City
CHELAN
BENTON
County
16.70
13.75
13.00
25.89
17.60
13.80
13.20
16.23
21.50
19.05
13.10
15.00
12.78
12.35
14.40
21.50
14.40
12.01
20.10
15.05
25.50
31.58
16.25
11.45
6.35
29.26
10.68
27.25
10.27
Fixed Charge
90.75
74.85
54.06
33.60
52.12
52.70
74.05
55.35
67.85
63.70
55.60
63.75
81.35
31.73
53.25
67.85
53.25
51.50
63.57
50.13
76.20
7.56
10.50
39.02
26.70
41.35
25.95
14.25
17.51
Commodity Charge*
Washington Water Survey Participants
107.45
88.60
67.06
59.49
69.72
66.50
87.25
71.58
89.35
82.75
68.70
78.75
94.13
44.08
67.65
89.35
67.65
63.51
83.67
65.18
101.70
39.14
26.75
50.47
33.05
70.61
36.63
41.50
27.78
Total Charge
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Rate Format
{ 16 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
Lakewood Water District
City of Puyallup
Tacoma Public Utilities
Skagit Public Utility District
City of Arlington
Edmonds Utilities
City of Everett
Snohomish County Public Utility District
City of Lynnwood
City of Marysville
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
City of Monroe
Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District
Bonney Lake
Lakewood
Puyallup
Tacoma
Mount Vernon
Arlington
Edmonds
Everett
Lake Stevens
Lynnwood
Marysville
Mill Creek
Monroe
Mukilteo
PIERCE
SKAGIT
SNOHOMISH
City of Sunnyside
City of Yakima
Pullman
Sunnyside
Yakima
WHITMAN
YAKIMA
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
11/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2014
10/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
10/1/2013
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/15/2013
1/1/2015
4/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month
City of Pullman
City of Bellingham
Bellingham
City of Walla Walla
Walla Walla
City of Tumwater
Tumwater
WHATCOM
City of Olympia
Olympia
Vera Water & Power
Spokane Valley
City of Lacey
Modern Electric Water Company
Spokane Valley
Lacey
City of Spokane
Spokane
City of Centralia
WALLA WALLA
THURSTON
SPOKANE
City of Bonney Lake
Centralia
LEWIS
City of Ellensburg
Ellensburg
City of Bremerton
Bremerton
City of Tukwila
Tukwila
KITTITAS
North City Water District
Water Service Provider
Shoreline
City
KITSAP
KING
County
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
8.77
16.88
24.25
15.42
32.90
7.32
10.96
13.41
16.00
10.95
14.92
11.70
22.92
14.95
10.90
19.38
21.64
18.95
13.16
32.15
22.35
19.60
8.16
14.79
14.71
19.51
21.17
12.11
16.00
25.71
Fixed Charge
21.90
19.35
22.00
25.05
25.50
35.73
46.67
32.46
0.00
6.00
8.19
35.86
30.25
35.20
36.92
22.20
49.65
37.90
41.10
36.08
52.91
24.68
35.51
16.98
24.25
53.40
17.93
31.35
42.00
59.37
Commodity Charge*
30.67
36.23
46.25
40.47
58.40
43.05
57.63
45.87
16.00
16.95
23.11
47.56
53.17
50.15
47.82
41.58
71.29
56.85
54.26
68.23
75.26
44.28
43.67
31.77
38.96
72.91
39.10
43.46
58.00
85.08
Total Charge
Uniform
Declining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Other
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 17 }
1/1/2015 7/20/2015
City of Auburn
City of Bellevue
City of Bothell
Southwest Suburban Sewer District
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
Midway Sewer District
Lakehaven Utility District
City of Issaquah
Northshore Utility District
City of Kent
City of Kirkland
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District
City of Mercer Island
City of Redmond
City of Renton
Sammamish Plateau Water & Sewer District
Valley View Sewer District
Seattle Public Utilities
Ronald Wastewater District
Longview
Pasco
Aberdeen
Oak Harbor
Auburn
Bellevue
Bothell
Burien
Covington
Des Moines
Federal Way
Issaquah
Kenmore
Kent
Kirkland
Maple Valley
Mercer Island
Redmond
Renton
Sammamish
Seatac
Seattle
Shoreline
COWLITZ
FRANKLIN
GRAYS HARBOR
ISLAND
KING
City of Oak Harbor
City of Aberdeen
City of Pasco
City of Longview
City of Vancouver
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/1/2014
1/1/2015
3/15/2015
12/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
12/20/2014
10/1/2015
4/1/2015
1/1/2015
Vancouver
1/1/2015
CLARK
City of Port Angeles
Port Angeles
1/1/2010
CLALLAM
City of Wenatchee's Water Resource Division
City of Richland
Richland
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Wenatchee
City of Kennewick
Water Service Provider
Kennewick
City
CHELAN
BENTON
County
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Billing Frequency
53.50
11.84
54.05
74.22
70.26
55.93
59.15
59.53
55.05
60.71
56.70
43.76
12.41
25.00
59.53
29.50
56.76
42.03
65.72
57.50
35.37
24.80
31.85
13.47
71.45
23.92
25.60
21.22
Fixed Charge
0.00
82.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.55
0.00
21.70
0.00
1.88
17.36
36.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.56
29.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
40.32
22.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Commodity Charge*
Washington Wastewater Survey Participants
53.50
94.72
54.05
74.22
70.26
55.93
87.70
59.53
76.75
60.71
58.58
61.12
49.21
25.00
59.53
29.50
79.32
71.15
65.72
57.50
35.37
24.80
72.17
35.92
71.45
23.92
25.60
21.22
Total Charge
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Rate Format
{ 18 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
City of Bonney Lake
Pierce County
City of Puyallup
City of Tacoma
Ellensburg
Centralia
Bonney Lake
Lakewood
Puyallup
Tacoma
KITTITAS
LEWIS
PIERCE
City of Marysville
Alderwood Water & Wastewater District
City of Monroe
Mukilteo Water and Wastewater District
Marysville
Mill Creek
Monroe
Mukilteo
City of Sunnyside
City of Yakima
Pullman
Sunnyside
Yakima
WHITMAN
YAKIMA
1/1/2014
1/1/2010
11/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
10/1/2013
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/15/2013
1/1/2013
1/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/2/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
Effective Date
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 8 ccf, or 5,984 thousand gallons, per month
City of Pullman
City of Bellingham
Bellingham
WHATCOM
City of Tumwater
Tumwater
City of Walla Walla
City of Olympia
Olympia
Walla Walla
City of Lacey
Lacey
WALLA WALLA
THURSTON
Spokane County Utilities
City of Lynnwood
Lynnwood
Spokane Valley
Lake Stevens Sewer District
Lake Stevens
City of Spokane
City of Everett
Everett
Spokane
Edmonds Utilities
Edmonds
SPOKANE
City of Arlington
Arlington
SNOHOMISH
City of Mount Vernon
Mount Vernon
SKAGIT
City of Centralia
City of Ellensburg
City of Bremerton
Bremerton
KITSAP
City of Tukwila
Water Service Provider
Tukwila
City
KING
County
20.62
40.65
38.15
37.24
52.10
51.51
55.73
54.10
47.01
28.06
61.86
94.51
54.00
40.60
40.30
80.00
39.25
30.36
70.15
30.65
21.50
16.98
44.18
53.45
63.50
33.26
33.49
71.03
Fixed Charge
24.08
18.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.80
32.40
41.20
0.00
26.56
17.92
0.00
35.92
0.00
Commodity Charge*
44.70
58.70
38.15
37.24
52.10
51.51
55.73
54.10
47.01
28.06
61.86
94.51
54.75
40.60
40.30
80.00
39.25
30.36
70.15
53.45
53.90
58.18
44.18
80.01
81.42
33.26
69.41
71.03
Total Charge
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 19 }
City of Lake Oswego
City of Milwaukie
City of Oregon City
City of West Linn
City of Wilsonville
Lake Oswego
Milwaukie
Oregon City
West Linn
Wilsonville
City of Ashland
Medford Water Commission
Roseburg
Ashland
Medford
DOUGLAS
JACKSON
7/1/2015
Portland Water Bureau
City of Troutdale
Portland
Troutdale
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
12/1/2006
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
2/1/2015
1/1/2015
3/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2013
7/1/2015
12/1/2015
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2011
7/1/2015
7/1/2011
11/11/2015
7/1/2014
Effective Date
City of Gresham
City of Woodburn
Woodburn
Gresham
City of Salem
Salem
MULTNOMAH
City of Keizer
Keizer
MARION
City of Ontario
Ontario
MALHEUR
City of Lebanon
Lebanon
City of Newport
City of Albany
Newport
Albany
LINCOLN
Springfield Utility Board
Springfield
LINN
Eugene Water & Electric Board
Eugene
LANE
City of Grants Pass
Grants Pass
JOSEPHINE
City of Roseburg
City of Bend
Coos Bay
Bend
COOS
DESCHUTES
Coos Bay - North Bend Water Board
Sunrise Water Authority
Happy Valley
City of St. Helens
City of Gladstone
Gladstone
St. Helens
Sunrise Water Authority
Damascus
COLUMBIA
Canby Utility
Canby
CLACKAMAS
City of Corvallis
Water Service Provider
Corvallis
City
BENTON
County
Monthly
Quarterly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
0.00
11.91
20.70
12.81
6.32
5.01
10.00
20.00
17.93
20.85
13.80
19.20
17.10
8.00
23.50
9.55
22.02
19.63
10.48
19.56
19.48
14.70
7.15
24.96
14.00
15.80
14.00
19.81
15.04
Fixed Charge
Oregon Water Survey Participants
33.99
59.10
33.90
26.85
38.70
19.50
14.85
69.75
46.71
38.50
23.88
20.92
14.75
7.28
48.22
22.80
27.30
34.69
78.29
42.77
17.92
36.90
48.60
47.35
36.00
15.75
36.00
25.24
29.90
Commodity Charge*
33.99
71.01
54.60
39.66
45.02
24.51
24.85
89.75
64.64
59.35
37.68
40.12
31.85
15.28
71.72
32.35
49.32
54.32
88.77
62.33
37.40
51.60
55.75
72.31
50.00
31.55
50.00
45.05
44.94
Total Charge
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Declining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Rate Format
{ 20 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
1/1/2015
10/1/2012
7/1/2015
10/1/2015
7/1/2015
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 15 ccf, or 11,220 gallons, per month
City of Newberg
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tigard
Tualatin
Newberg
City of Sherwood
Sherwood
McMinnville Water & Light
City of Hillsboro
Hillsboro
McMinnville
1/1/2015
City of Forest Grove
Forest Grove
YAMHILL
7/1/2015
City of Cornelius
Cornelius 7/1/2015
City of Beaverton
Beaverton
4/1/2014 8/1/2015
WASHINGTON
City of Pendleton
City of La Grande
La Grande
Pendleton
7/1/2015
6/1/2015
Effective Date
UNION
City of Hermiston
Hermiston
UMATILLA
City of Dallas
Water Service Provider
Dallas
City
POLK
County
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
11.48
12.11
7.34
25.83
19.49
13.71
22.04
25.85
13.00
23.14
18.15
17.14
16.90
Fixed Charge
55.95
23.05
39.00
63.96
59.40
31.63
26.79
47.10
44.55
12.00
17.25
10.40
21.84
Commodity Charge*
67.43
35.16
46.34
89.79
78.89
45.34
48.83
72.95
57.55
35.14
35.40
27.54
38.74
Total Charge
Uniform
Inclining
Uniform
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Inclining
Uniform
Declining
Inclining
Declining
Uniform
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 21 }
City of Ashland
Rogue Valley Sewer Services
City of Medford
Ashland
Central Point
Medford
City of Albany
City of Lebanon
Springfield
Newport
Albany
Lebanon
LANE
LINCOLN
LINN
City of Gresham
Bureau of Environmental Services
City of Troutdale
Portland
Troutdale
City of Woodburn
Woodburn
Gresham
City of Salem
Salem
MULTNOMAH
City of Keizer
Keizer
MARION
City of Ontario
Ontario
MALHEUR
City of Newport
City of Springfield
City of Eugene
Eugene
LANE
City of Grants Pass
Grants Pass
JOSEPHINE
City of Bend
City of Coos Bay
JACKSON
City of Wilsonville
Wilsonville
Bend
City of West Linn
West Linn
DESCHUTES
City of Oregon City
Oregon City
Coos Bay
City of Milwaukie
Milwaukie
COOS
City of Lake Oswego
Lake Oswego
City of St. Helens
Clackamas County Service District # 1
Happy Valley
St. Helens
City of Gladstone
Gladstone
COLUMBIA
City of Canby
Canby
CLACKAMAS
City of Corvallis
Water Service Provider
Corvallis
City
BENTON
County
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2014
1/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
1/1/2015
7/15/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
12/1/2015
1/1/2014
1/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
11/1/2008
7/1/2015
7/1/2014
Effective Date
Monthly
Quarterly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
35.73
0.00
27.49
44.64
16.59
12.60
40.27
22.98
37.38
22.90
12.33
12.33
13.62
17.82
18.30
27.41
32.24
18.86
15.27
19.84
36.08
49.83
37.21
51.25
43.50
11.65
46.20
17.24
Fixed Charge
0.00
76.00
0.00
25.95
25.84
26.64
0.00
52.56
21.08
39.60
40.74
27.26
16.68
0.00
0.00
16.36
27.04
54.08
46.92
53.10
0.00
0.00
21.76
15.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.92
Commodity Charge*
Oregon Wastewater Survey Participants
35.73
76.00
27.49
70.59
42.43
39.24
40.27
75.54
58.46
62.50
53.07
39.59
30.30
17.82
18.30
43.77
59.28
72.94
62.18
72.94
36.08
49.83
58.97
66.37
43.50
11.65
46.20
39.16
Total Charge
Fixed Only
Other
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed and Variable
Rate Format
{ 22 } 2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tigard
Tualatin
1/1/2015
7/1/2014
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
7/1/2015
8/1/2015
4/1/2014
7/1/2015
6/1/2015
Effective Date
*Commodity charge based on the usage of 8 ccf, or 5,984 gallons, per month
City of Newberg
City of Sherwood
Sherwood
Newberg
City of Hillsboro
Hillsboro
City of McMinnville
City of Forest Grove
Forest Grove
McMinnville
City of Cornelius
Cornelius
YAMHILL
City of Beaverton
Beaverton
WASHINGTON
City of La Grande
La Grande
City of Pendleton
Pendleton
UNION
City of Hermiston
Hermiston
UMATILLA
City of Dallas
Water Service Provider
Dallas
City
POLK
County
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Billing Frequency
19.43
17.73
27.44
26.63
27.27
26.63
30.55
33.97
28.63
37.34
30.45
23.56
43.93
Fixed Charge
62.16
40.64
14.66
14.16
14.16
14.16
14.20
14.22
14.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Commodity Charge*
81.59
58.37
42.10
40.79
41.43
40.79
44.75
48.19
42.79
37.34
30.45
23.56
43.93
Total Charge
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed and Variable
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Fixed Only
Rate Format
2016 WASHINGTON/OREGON WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE SURVEY { 23 }
1100 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH, SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98109 P: 714.300.8129 / F: 213.262.9303 WWW.RAFTELIS.COM
201 SOUTH LAKE AVENUE, SUITE 301, PASADENA, CA 91101 P: 626.583.1894 | F: 626.583.1411 WWW.RAFTELIS.COM
