Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey MARCH 2015   Published by the League of Oregon Cities and the Community Planning Workshop at the University of Oregon L E A G U E O F O R E G O N C I T I E S SPECIAL THANKS & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Community Planning Workshop (CPW) and League of Oregon Cities (LOC) would like to thank the individuals and organizations that supported the development of the 2014 Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Survey. Project Focus Group Alicia Blalock City of Salem Brian Stahl City of Gresham John Goodrich & Ron Blecker City of Tigard Timothy Gross City of Newport Paul Eckley City of Silverton CPW Staff Project Director Bob Parker AICP, Director of the Community Service Center and Community Planning Workshop, University of Oregon Project Manager Casey Hanson, Community Planning Workshop Project Coordinator/Research Assistant Res earch Team Leigh Anne Hogue Emily Kettell About the Community Planning Workshop Community Planning Workshop (CPW) is one of the core programs of the University of Oregon’s Community Service Center (CSC) (csc.uoregon.edu). Established in 1977, CPW provides students the opportunity to address planning and public policy problems for clients throughout Oregon. Students work in teams under the direction of faculty and Graduate Teaching Fellows to develop proposals, conduct research, analyze and evaluate alternatives, and make recommendations for possible solutions to planning problems in rural Oregon communities. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2: Utility Billing ........................................................................................4 Chapter 3: System Characteristics .........................................................................11 Chapter 4: System Rates and Infrastructure Highlights .........................................16 Chapter 5: Asset Management ...............................................................................31 Appendix A: Survey Design and Administration ..................................................34 Appendix B: Overall Rate Characteristics .............................................................36 Appendix C: Drinking Water Rate Structure, Pricing and System Characteristics ...........................................................................................47 Appendix D: Wastewater Rate Structure, Pricing and System Characteristics ...........................................................................................88 Appendix E: Stormwater Fees, Pricing and Characteristics ................................129 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION In the summer of 2014, the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) surveyed its member cities to obtain information about utility rates and other system characteristics for water, wastewater and stormwater. The League contracted with the Community Service Center (CSC) at the University of Oregon to help design and conduct the survey. This is the third LOC water, wastewater and stormwater survey. The League contracted withOregon State University to conduct the first survey in 2004. With assistance from the Environment Finance Center at Boise State University, the survey was expanded in 2009 to include additional topics relative to utility operations. The 2014 survey includes many topics from the 2009 survey and covers areas beyond just rates and charges. Survey topics include:  Asset management;  Service population and connections;  Facility age and capacity;  Water source;  System characteristics (e.g., miles of lines, pump/lift stations);  Level of treatment;  Water loss and metering; and  Water and wastewater programs. Previous survey results have proven to be a valuable resource enabling cities to compare their current policies and practices to other cities throughout the state. The League only conducts the survey every five years, so it is vital to obtain information on the current state of Oregon’s water utility rates and system characteristics. The survey results are also used by the League to advocate for cities at the state level. The League gives cities access to the results so they can use it as a reference and for comparison to other cities’ rates and data. Since not all cities provide water, wastewater and stormwater services, CSC sent out a preliminary survey to identify what services cities provide and appropriate city staff contacts for the different sections of the full survey. All 242 cities received the preliminary survey, and 168 responded (a 70 percent response rate). Table 1.1 depicts the number of cities that provide water, wastewater and stormwater services. Only two cities do not provide any: King City and Rivergrove. Table 1.1: Number of Cities That Provide Services Service # of Respondents Do Provide Do Not Provide No Response Water 168 157 11 0 Wastewater 162 138 24 6 Stormwater 163 110 53 5 To develop the survey, the League assembled a focus group of public works staff to provide input and recommendations on the survey content and methodologies. CSC incorporated those recommendations into a revised survey that was distributed to all 242 Oregon cities. Cities received follow-up emails as reminders to complete the survey if they had not submitted a response. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 2 Full Survey Respondent Characteristics Every county had at least one responding city except for Crook County, which only has one incorporated city. Overall, city response rate per county was strong. Exactly half of the 36 counties had a 50 percent response rate or higher, and five counties had a response rate of 75 percent or higher. Only two responding cities indicated that they did not have any systems. Response Rate For the full 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Survey, 55 percent (133) of Oregon’s 242 incorporated cities responded to the survey. Of the cities that responded, nearly 89 percent of the cities fully completed the surveys. Details of the response rate:  Cities with a population of <10,000 account for about 80 percent of cities in Oregon and represented 76 percent of survey respondents.  In general, as city size increased so did the response rate.  Cities of 50,000 or more had the highest response rate of 73 percent.  Cities of <1,000 had the lowest response rate of 49 percent. Table 1.2: Response Rate by City Size City Size # of Cities Responded # of Oregon Cities Response Rate <1,000 40 82 49% 1,000-4,999 47 84 56% 5,000-9,999 15 30 50% 10,000-24,999 17 26 65% 25,000-49,999 6 9 67% 50,000 or more 8 11 73% All cities 133 242 55% 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 3 Organization of this Report The remainder of this report is organized into five chapters and several appendices: Chapter 2 discusses cities’ utility billing in general. It includes topics related to the frequency of billing, how payments are accepted, overall fee structure, how fees are enforced, rate revenue data, and information related to billing credits and adjustments. Chapter 3 presents key characteristics of the water, wastewater and stormwater systems. It covers the services that cities provide, service population, and number of connections for the different systems. Chapter 4 contains survey rate and infrastructure highlights for drinking water, wastewater and stormwater. The rates discussed in this chapter review: how each system’s rate structure is set up; when rates have changed; why they have changed; and the average bill for a resident based on a predetermined volume of water/wastewater. Since this section only highlights results for each system, more data is presented in the appendices. Chapter 5 reviews survey responses regarding asset management. It summarizes how many cities have asset management plans for water, wastewater and stormwater utilities, and whether those plans are adequately funded. The report also includes five appendices: Appendix A elaborates on the methodology, the survey design, and data editing and analysis. Appendix B shows the year in which cities conducted their most recent water rate study and a methodology update. Appendix C contains cities’ responses about the water rate structure, pricing and system characteristics. Appendix D contains cities’ responses about the wastewater rate structure, pricing and system characteristics. Appendix E contains cities’ responses about stormwater fees, pricing and system characteristics. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 4 CHAPTER 2: UTILITY BILLING The survey asked cities about the characteristics of how they bill their customers. Questions addressed the frequency of billing, how payments are accepted, overall rate structure, how fees are enforced, rate revenue data, and information related to billing credits and adjustments. Since the 2009 survey did not include these topics, there is no comparison between the 2009 and 2014 survey results. Billing Most cities bill customers monthly, while only a few use bi-monthly, quarterly or another timeframe. Most of the cities that did not bill monthly are less than 25,000 in population (Table 2.1). Table 2.1: Number of Cities per Billing Frequency City Size Monthly Bi- monthly Quarterly Other <1,000 34 4 0 2 1,000-4,999 37 2 0 1 5,000-9,999 13 1 0 0 10,000-24,999 13 2 0 0 25,000-49,999 6 0 0 0 50,000 or more 4 0 1 0 All cities 107 9 1 3 Not surprisingly, all cities accept cash and check as a form of payment. Smaller cities predominately accept cash, check and money orders while larger cities have higher percentage rates of accepting all forms of payment (Table 2.2). The survey results show that as the population size increases, the payment methods accepted diversified. It is consistent, regardless of city size, that e-checks are the least likely accepted form of payment. Table 2.2: Percentage of Cities that Accept Methods of Payment City Size Cash Check Credit/ Debit Money Order Direct Deposit e-check <1,000 100 100 16 84 13 11 1,000-4,999 100 100 50 95 38 33 5,000-9,999 100 100 86 93 79 71 10,000-24,999 100 100 93 93 73 53 25,000-49,999 100 100 100 83 100 67 50,000 or more 100 100 100 100 80 60 All cities 100 100 53 91 44 36 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 5 Many service providers are starting to offer their customers paperless billing as a convenient way for customers to receive, view and pay bills while also “going green.” The survey results indicate that more cities than not, with a population of 5,000 or more, provide paperless billing (Table 2.3). In addition to paperless billing, the survey also asked cities if they contract out billing. Results show that while relatively few cities contract out billing in Oregon, many of the cities that do are less than 25,000 in population. A majority of cities that don’t contract out billing and do their own billing use proprietary software, the most popular being QuickBooks, Springbrook and Asyst. Table 2.3: Characteristics of Billing Services (# of Cities Using) City Size Paperless Billing Contract Out Billing Proprietary Software # of Responses <1,000 3 2 31 38 1,000-4,999 4 1 26 40 5,000-9,999 12 4 8 14 10,000-24,999 11 4 10 15 25,000-49,999 5 0 6 6 50,000 or more 4 0 5 5 All cities 39 11 86 118 Account Features & Fees A majority of cities do not require the account to be in the property owner’s name. However, cities with a population of 25,000 or more frequently had this requirement compared to smaller cities. When a property is unoccupied, most cities will close the account associated with that property until the next occupant opens an account. However, some cities allow the owner to request a vacant rate instead of closing the account. The latter option occurs more in cities with populations of less than 5,000. This is conceivable since many cities with a population of less than 5,000 experience an increase in residents during certain times of the year (Table 3.2). Many of these seasonal residents may occupy another home during other parts of the year. Most cities have an “other” way of handling billing for vacant properties as shown in Table 2.5. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 6 Table 2.4: Percentage of Cities that Require Account to be in Property Owner’s Name City Size Account Must be Property Owner <1,000 26 1,000-4,999 17 5,000-9,999 8 10,000-24,999 7 25,000-49,999 33 50,000 or more 50 All cities 19 Table 2.5: Number of Cities Billing for Vacant Properties City Size Close Account, No Charges Vacant Rate, Request of Owner Does Not Handle Other <1,000 14 4 1 16 1,000-4,999 21 8 0 9 5,000-9,999 5 0 0 8 10,000-24,999 6 2 1 6 25,000-49,999 3 0 0 3 50,000 or more 2 0 0 1 All cities 51 14 2 43 The survey asked what additional types of account fees are included in water bills. Based on the responses, the most common type of account fee included in the bill was shutoff followed by “other” fees. “Other” examples include, but are not limited to, system improvement, stormwater and emergency fund. A handful of cities with a population of less than 5,000 do not have any fees, which is not the case for other city sizes. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 7 Table 2.6: Number of Cities with Types of Account Fees City Size B a c k fl o w N e w A c c o u n t S h u to ff T a m p e ri n g N o n e O th e r <1,000 6 12 16 4 11 7 1,000-4,999 4 8 14 7 10 15 5,000-9,999 0 2 12 6 1 7 10,000-24,999 1 6 7 7 1 7 25,000-49,999 2 1 6 4 0 0 50,000 or more 2 2 3 3 1 1 All cities 15 31 58 31 24 37 The survey also asked what types of governmental fees are included in water bills, such as streetlights, parks, police and library fees. As Table 2.7 shows, the number of cities that include other government service fees in their utility bills is very small. If cities do include such fees, most are for “other” types of fees, followed by streetlights, parks and police. “Other” examples include, but are not limited to, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), fire protection and street maintenance. The latter was the most frequently listed example. Table 2.7: Number of Cities with Types of Governmental Fees City Size S tr e e tl ig h ts P a rk s P o li c e L ib ra ry N o n e O th e r <1,000 0 1 1 0 33 0 1,000-4,999 4 2 0 0 26 7 5,000-9,999 1 2 2 1 6 5 10,000-24,999 4 0 1 0 6 6 25,000-49,999 0 1 1 0 2 4 50,000 or more 0 1 1 0 2 2 All cities 9 7 6 1 75 24 When an account holder has a late payment or nonpayment, cities use several methods of enforcement to address the issue. Table 2.8 indicates the most popular method of enforcement is to disconnect the water service, followed by administering a late fee. Although not as highly used, liens on property and collections are other commonly used methods. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 8 Table 2.8: Number of Cities that Use Methods of Enforcement for Late or Nonpayment City Size P e n a lt ie s a n d In te re st C o ll e c ti o n s L ie n o n P ro p e rt y O th e r L a te F e e D is c o n n e c t W a te r S e rv ic e <1,000 10 17 25 3 31 37 1,000-4,999 10 19 32 2 36 37 5,000-9,999 5 9 10 2 13 14 10,000-24,999 4 13 7 4 11 15 25,000-49,999 4 6 3 0 6 6 50,000 or more 3 5 1 1 4 5 All cities 36 69 78 12 101 114 While disconnecting the water service is a common method of enforcement, most cities wait four to six weeks before disconnecting a customer’s service (Table 2.9). Cities of 50,000 in population allowed for the longest elapsed time for disconnect at an average of 49 days. On average, cities with a population of less than 25,000 will assess a late fee less than a month from the due date, while cities with a population of 25,000 or more allow for more than a month. The average number of days before triggering collections for responding cities varied from less than two months to almost four months. Table 2.9: Average Days Elapsed Before Method of Enforcement Triggered City Size Late Fee Assessed Disconnect Collections <1,000 17 44 83 1,000-4,999 19 31 74 5,000-9,999 23 35 58 10,000-24,999 22 32 78 25,000-49,999 38 45 113 50,000 or more 39 49 69 All cities 20 37 79 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 9 Rate Characteristics The survey results show that a majority of cities (81 percent for water, 81 percent for wastewater, 86 percent for stormwater) do not have an automatic CPI/Income adjustment. Cities with a population range of 1,000-4,999 and 10,000-49,999 represent the highest percentage of cities that automatically adjust rates for inflation. None of the cities with a population of 50,000 or more automatically adjust rates for inflation. Cities had the option to select “not applicable” (N/A) in order to indicate that they do not provide this service. Table 2.10: Percentage of Cities with Automatic CPI/Income Adjustment Water Wastewater Stormwater City Size % N/A % N/A % N/A <1,000 6 5 10 13 0 24 1,000-4,999 33 5 27 8 25 21 5,000-9,999 8 0 9 2 0 2 10,000-24,999 23 1 23 1 25 2 25,000-49,999 33 0 33 0 20 1 50,000 or more 0 0 0 1 0 2 All cities 19 11 19 25 14 52 Cities often require a percentage of their rate revenue to be used for debt service, which is a way to cover the payment of interest and principle on existing debt for water infrastructure projects. As Table 2.11 shows, it is more common for cities to have a higher percentage of their rate revenue for water and wastewater obligated to debt service than it is for stormwater, except for larger cities, where all three are common. In general, wastewater has a slightly higher percentage of rate revenue obligated to debt service than water. Table 2.11 Average Percent of Rate Revenue Obligated to Debt Service City Size Water Wastewater Stormwater <1,000 26 33 0 1,000-4,999 15 20 0 5,000-9,999 31 25 11 10,000-24,999 20 18 4 25,000-49,999 11 24 5 50,000 or more 22 28 30 All cities 21 24 4 Generally speaking, as city size increases so does the percentage of cities that offer waivers. Cities had the opportunity to elaborate on what types of customers received waivers, and the spectrum of customers is rather large. Responses included churches, veterans, low income families, senior citizens, active duty military personnel, and hardship-approved customers. Low income and senior citizens were by far the 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 10 most frequent type of customer to receive a waiver, while some cities had unique customers. For example, one city offered its city employees free water and another city provided waivers for active duty military personnel. When it comes to credits and adjustments for billing errors and leaks, a majority of cities provide adjustments for both. Cities are more likely to make adjustments for water leaks than for wastewater leaks as shown in Table 2.12. Table 2.12 Percentage of Cities That Provide Waiver, Credits and Adjustments Credit & Billing Adjustments City Size Waivers for Certain Customers Only Billing Errors Only Leaks Both Billing Errors & Leaks Water Leaks Wastewater Leaks <1,000 18 18 3 72 100 7 1,000-4,999 26 10 0 85 97 24 5,000-9,999 21 0 7 93 93 71 10,000-24,999 53 0 7 93 93 60 25,000-49,999 83 0 0 100 100 33 50,000 or more 80 0 0 100 100 80 All cities 31 9 3 84 97 34 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 11 CHAPTER 3: SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS This chapter summarizes key characteristics of the responding municipalities’ systems such as: service provision; service populations both inside and outside city limits for permanent and seasonal residents; and the number of connections both inside and outside the city limits. Services Provided Of the 133 cities that responded to the survey:  121 provide water;  106 provide wastewater; and  61 provide stormwater. Table 3.1 shows that water is the most predominant service offered, followed by wastewater, then stormwater. This is consistent with results from the preliminary survey (Table 1.1). Cities with a population of 5,000 or more are more likely to provide stormwater services than cities with a population less than 5,000. Table 3.1: Number of Cities Providing Services Water Wastewater Stormwater City Size Yes No Yes No Yes No <1,000 37 2 25 14 5 34 1,000-4,999 41 3 39 6 17 27 5,000-9,999 15 0 13 2 13 1 10,000-24,999 16 1 16 1 15 2 25,000-49,999 7 0 7 0 5 2 50,000 or more 5 1 6 0 6 0 All cities 121 7 106 23 61 66 Water Oregon’s statewide planning Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services) limits types of services and facilities cities can provide outside of urban growth boundaries (UGBs). However, cities commonly provide services to unincorporated areas that are within the UGB. Common examples include providing water to residents within the UGB, wholesale agreements with a neighboring community, and providing water to unincorporated properties such as airports and schools. The survey asked cities to list their permanent service population inside and outside the city limits. Additionally, cities were also given the option to indicate their peak population if it changes throughout the year. As Table 3.2 illustrates, it is common for Oregon cities to provide water services to customers outside of the city limits. Generally, the service population residing outside city limits is larger for bigger cities. Usually, the larger utilities in Oregon provide water to other cities or subdivisions under special agreements. Only one of the cities with a population range of 25,000-49,999 listed an outside population. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 12 Of the cities that have service populations inside and outside city limits, many had the same population count for permanent and peak populations. However, some cities did experience an increase in population for a peak population. Cities with a smaller population (less than 5,000) accounted for 87 percent of cities (12 of 14) that experienced a peak inside population increase and 71 percent of cities (5 of 7) that experienced a peak outside population. Table 3.2: Average Water Service Population Inside and Outside City Limits Permanent Residents City Size Inside Population Outside Population <1,000 470 52 1,000-4,999 1,905 225 5,000-9,999 7,581 216 10,000-24,999 18,066 4,973 25,000-49,999 35,634 17 50,000 or more 82,986 17,680 All cities 10,419 1,907 On average, more outside connections exist for Single Family Residential (SFR) than commercial (Table 3.3). In other words, 11 percent of SFR connections are located outside city limits compared to 7 percent for commercial. “Other” connections surpass both SFR and commercial for cities with a population of 25,000 or more in having a larger percentage of connections located outside city limits. Although several outside connections exist for both SFR, commercial and other for all city sizes, Table 3.4 demonstrates SFRs are the most prevalent type of outside connection. Table 3.3: Average Number of Inside and Outside Water Connections (relative to city limits) Single Family Residential Commercial Other City Size Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside <1,000 270 75 18 3 4 0 1,000-4,999 800 53 126 5 45 1 5,000-9,999 2,629 212 249 5 86 2 10,000-24,999 5,150 972 590 87 305 2 25,000-49,999 9,492 984 705 16 797 124 50,000 or more 22,339 2,297 2,323 154 1,673 729 All cities 3,136 396 307 24 235 82 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 13 Table 3.4: Percent Composition of Outside Water Connections City Size % Single Family Residential % Commercial % Other <1,000 97 3 0 1,000-4,999 90 9 1 5,000-9,999 97 2 1 10,000-24,999 92 8 0 25,000-49,999 88 1 11 50,000 or more 72 5 23 All cities 79 5 16 Wastewater For each city size, roughly one-third of cities provide wastewater services outside of their city limits. The average outside population receiving wastewater services is lower than the outside population receiving water service by 375 residents. The difference in outside populations receiving water versus wastewater increases significantly to about 4,100 residents for cities with a population between 10,000 and 24,999. The larger average for water is due to one city that has a significantly high outside service population for water. If that city were not included in the average, the outside water service population is more comparable at 1,270 residents. The number of cities that experienced a peak inside/outside service population for wastewater services is relatively low. Only eight cities experienced an increase in peak inside population and five of those cities were less than 5,000 in population. Only two cities experienced a peak outside population. Table 3.5: Average Wastewater Service Population Inside and Outside City Limits Permanent Residents City Size Inside Population Outside Population <1,000 521 19 1,000-4,999 2,028 84 5,000-9,999 8,427 71 10,000-24,999 17,414 870 25,000-49,999 30,101 - 50,000 or more 66,115 18,872 All cities 11,054 1,532 When compared to water, wastewater has a lower average number of connections per connection type. This is expected given that water is the most commonly provided service among the cities that responded to the survey. Interestingly, cities with a population of 50,000 or more have a higher percentage of SFR 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 14 (16 percent) and commercial (11 percent) connections located outside the city limits compared to water which is 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively. As shown in Table 3.7 SFR remains the predominate type of outside connection for all city sizes. Table 3.6: Average Number of Inside and Outside Wastewater Connections (relative to city limits) Single Family Residential Commercial Other City Size Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside <1,000 250 7 19 1 3 - 1,000-4,999 768 26 83 4 47 - 5,000-9,999 2,841 12 297 2 43 0 10,000-24,999 5,256 200 473 28 323 0 25,000-49,999 8,348 266 776 6 598 55 50,000 or more 22,449 4,424 1,873 224 7,752 587 All cities 3,273 363 299 20 876 51 Table 3.7: Percent Composition of Outside Wastewater Connections City Size % Single Family Residential % Commercial % Other <1,000 93 7 0 1,000-4,999 87 13 0 5,000-9,999 85 13 2 10,000-24,999 88 12 0 25,000-49,999 81 2 17 50,000 or more 85 4 11 All cities 84 5 12 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 15 Stormwater Stormwater is the least common service provided when compared to water and wastewater. If a city does provide it, it is predominately offered inside city limits (Table 3.8). In this survey, for the cities that do provide stormwater services outside of city limits, most of the connections are SFR. However, only six cities listed an outside population for SFR. Two cities listed an outside population for commercial, and none of the cities reported outside connections of “other.” Table 3.8: Average Number of Inside and Outside Stormwater Connections (relative to city limits) Single Family Residential Commercial Other City Size Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside <1,000 132 1 14 0 0 0 1,000-4,999 811 7 82 0 22 0 5,000-9,999 2,258 0 242 0 22 0 10,000-24,999 4,972 76 533 16 173 0 25,000-49,999 11,300 0 586 0 2,490 0 50,000 or more 24,826 0 2,157 0 2,292 0 All cities 4,241 20 385 4 2,218 0 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 16 CHAPTER 4: SYSTEM RATES AND INFRASTRUCTURE HIGHLIGHTS This chapter highlights survey responses for the water, wastewater and stormwater rates changes and system characteristics. Survey responses are presented in two main subsections for each system. The first section, “Rate Changes,” summarizes: when cities have updated rates; how rates have changed; why they have changed; and pricing structures. The second section describes system characteristics or facilities, including: the age of the facilities; miles of lines; average cost of water; and types of programs among other topics. Comparisons of how the current state of Oregon’s water utility rates and system characteristics has changed since the 2009 survey are also discussed when data is available. Drinking Water Systems Rate Changes Most cities have changed their rates within the last two years. In fact, 2014 was the most common year for rate changes for all city sizes. Only six cities have not adjusted their rates within the last 10 years, and almost all cities increased their rates, with the exception of three. It appears that within the rate change, most of the cities experienced an overall increase in rates; only a handful experienced both increases and decreases. The results illustrate that customers can continue to expect water rates to increase over time. Table 4.1: Average Year of Water System Rate Changes & Number of Cities That Experienced Increases and Decreases in Rate Change Last Rate Change Overall Some of the Rates Both Increased and Decreased City Size Avg. Year Mode Increase Decrease Yes No <1,000 2012 2014 33 0 8 25 1,000-4,999 2013 2014 35 2 7 30 5,000-9,999 2013 2014 13 1 0 14 10,000-24,999 2014 2014 14 0 2 14 25,000-49,999 2014 2014 6 0 0 6 50,000 or more 2014 2014 6 0 0 6 All cities 2013 2014 107 3 17 95 The survey asked respondents to elaborate on why their rates increased and provided the option to select multiple reasons. Overall, inflation and capital improvement were the top reasons for rate changes, unchanged from the 2009 survey results. This is expected given that the nation’s water system has entered the “rehabilitation and replacement era” as documented in the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 17 (EPA) 2011 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment.1 Treatment costs and labor costs also were significant reasons for rate changes, but the number of cities that listed those as a catalyst has dropped slightly from the 2009 survey. “State and federal mandate” has also dropped significantly compared to the 2009 survey. Table 4.2 further depicts the breakdown of the catalysts for change. Table 4.2: Catalysts for Rate Changes (# of Cities) City Size S ta te / F e d e ra l M a n d a te In fl a ti o n /C P I T re a tm e n t C o st s L a b o r C o st s C a p it a l Im p ro v e m e n t R e a so n U n k n o w n O th e r <1,000 1 15 7 7 17 1 10 1,000-4,999 2 19 9 10 12 1 6 5,000-9,999 1 7 5 5 9 0 2 10,000-24,999 1 11 4 5 9 0 5 25,000-49,999 1 4 2 2 5 0 0 50,000 or more 2 5 4 4 4 0 0 All cities 8 61 31 33 56 2 23 The pricing structure a city uses to bill its customers can influence how customers use water. For example, an inclining block rate is going to be more expensive for a customer as the amount of water usage increases. “Other” was the most common type of pricing structure, followed by a flat rate and inclining block rate. Only two cities offer a declining block rate. The most common identified pricing structure in the “other” category is a base rate with usage rates added on. Based on this information, with the high incidence of cities using inclining block rates, it is clear that many cities charge customers more as their water usage increases. 1EPA. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: Fifth Report to Congress. http://water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf/upload/epa816r13006.pdf 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 18 Table 4.3: Number of Cities Using Types of Pricing Structures for Water System City Size Flat Rate Inclining Block Rate Declining Block Rate Other <1,000 15 10 0 10 1,000-4,999 11 11 1 17 5,000-9,999 5 3 0 7 10,000-24,999 3 6 0 7 25,000-49,999 1 2 0 3 50,000 or more 2 1 1 2 All cities 37 33 2 46 Many cities do not charge for elevation pumping or provide discounts for lower elevations. As highlighted in Table 4.4, more than one-half of the cities that do charge or provide discounts are cities with populations greater than 10,000. Table 4.4: Number of Cities Charging for Elevation/ Pumping or Providing Discounts for Lower Elevation City Size Do Do Not # of Responses <1,000 1 34 35 1,000-4,999 1 39 40 5,000-9,999 0 15 15 10,000-24,999 1 15 16 25,000-49,999 2 4 6 50,000 or more 1 5 6 All cities 6 112 118 Average Water Bill The survey asked cities what a residential customer would be charged for using 5,000 gallons of water as measured by a ¾˝ meter. Even though cities may offer different pricing structures that do not fit this scenario, this amount was chosen as a way to provide a best possible comparison among cities. If cities did not have a pricing structure that would allow them to bill for exactly 5,000 gallons, they listed the lowest billing amount that would include the 5,000 gallons. The following results are presented by city size and by region. The regional analysis consists of six regions: Coastal, Valley, Southern, Portland/Mt. Hood, Central and Eastern. It’s important to note that the values reported below are just that, values. Assumptions cannot be made that a utility is in the black or red. In other words, a lower value does not necessarily suggest a utility is 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 19 meeting its maintenance and operating costs and generating enough revenue to fund capital investments. Similarly, a higher value does not necessarily suggest a city is generating more revenue than it needs. City Size The average water bill for a residential customer was highest for smaller cities, at about $40, while bills were lowest for cities with populations of 50,000 or more at about $26. This makes sense as the economy of scale is more favorable for larger utility operations. When adjusted for inflation, the average 2009 water bill for all city sizes is lower than the 2014 average (Table 4.5). Overall, the average increase from 2009 to 2014 is $2.22, but for the varying city sizes, the increase ranges from -$1.23 to $5.27. While cities with a population of 1,000-4,999 seemed to experience a decrease, this city size has reported increasing their rates as presented in Table 4.1. Furthermore, every city of this size that participated in both the 2009 and 2014 survey reported a higher bill in 2014 than in 2009 for this scenario. One explanation is that cities that did not participate in the 2014 survey but did so in 2009 had higher bills, increasing the 2009 average. Table 4.5 also shows the lowest and highest 2014 average bill for each city size. The city with the lowest bill has not increased its rates since 1998. The city with the highest bill raised rates in 2013 to invest in capital improvements to address a 60 percent water loss rate, cover operation and maintenance costs, and ensure an ability to repay bonds. Table 4.5: Average Water Bill for 5,000 gallons with a ¾˝ meter for a Residential Customer (Dollars) City Size 2009 Adjusted* 2014 2014 Low 2014 High <1,000 37.36 39.95 10.00 69.75 1,000-4,999 35.27 34.04 15.00 60.75 5,000-9,999 30.08 33.40 20.10 51.38 10,000-24,999 26.41 31.68 14.26 57.94 25,000-49,999 27.47 32.65 18.55 57.32 50,000 or more 22.02 26.21 10.57 43.09 All cities 32.66 34.88 10.00 69.75 *Portland-Salem CPI-U used Regional As illustrated in Table 4.6, each region’s average, highest and lowest bill is reported along with the range. Additionally, Appendix C provides charts of cities’ reported water bills for each region. The Southern region had the lowest average water bill at $30.12, while the Valley had the highest average bill at $40.26 (34 percent more expensive). When compared to city size averages, the average regional bill is similar but tends to be slightly higher. The Eastern region houses the city with the lowest reported bill, and the city with the highest bill resides in the Valley. Regardless of region, the lowest water bills are comparable, falling roughly within a $10 window. This is not the case when comparing the six regions’ highest bills—the biggest difference is almost $30. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 20 While every region had a broad distribution of reported values, some notable differences exist. For this scenario, the Valley did not have any cities reporting a water bill less than $20. Only five cities had a reported bill of $60 or more. Four out of five of those cities are located within the Valley. While the Southern region has the lowest average bill and range, the Central region would have the lowest average water bill at around $29 with the exception of one city. Table 4.6 Average Water Bill for 5,000 gallons with a ¾˝ meter for a Residential Customer by Region (Dollars) Facilities and Infrastructure A positive correlation exists between city size and the average age of water facilities, based on original construction date; age increases with city size. For example, the average years plants were built for cities with populations less than 10,000 were in the 1960s. For cities with a population of 10,000 or more, the average years of original construction of facilities took place in the 1930s to 1940s (Table 4.7). For facility upgrades, most of the city sizes had an average upgrade year that occurred within the last decade, except for cities with a population of less than 1,000 and 25,000-49,999. Overall, the average age of facilities is older in the 2014 survey (54 years) when compared to the 2009 survey, which was 25 years old (adjusted for age in 2014). This holds true even when broken down by city size. This may be due to an increase in respondents that provided a year of original construction for the 2014 survey which would have increased the average age of facilities. Table 4.7: Average Age of Facility and Facility Upgrades City Size Avg. Year Built Avg. Year Upgraded <1,000 1966 2000 1,000-4,999 1964 2004 5,000-9,999 1969 2005 10,000-24,999 1938 2005 25,000-49,999 1943 2000 50,000 or more 1953 2005 All cities 1960 2003 City Size 2014 Low High Range Coastal 38.01 17.40 60.75 43.35 Valley 40.26 20.10 69.75 49.65 Southern 30.12 10.57 41.97 31.40 Portland/Mt. Hood 33.19 14.85 57.32 42.47 Central 31.96 14.26 57.94 43.68 Eastern 31.73 10.00 45.92 35.92 All cities 34.88 10.00 69.75 59.75 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 21 Not surprisingly, a positive correlation also exists for city size and the total mileage of water lines as indicated in Table 4.8. These numbers are similar to the 2009 survey results. However, the average miles of water line for communities of 50,000 or more is less than in 2009. Table 4.8: Average Total Miles of Water Lines, Not Including Service/Laterals City Size Miles <1,000 8 1,000-4,999 19 5,000-9,999 46 10,000-24,999 107 25,000-49,999 185 50,000 or more 427 All cities 76 Wastewater System Highlights Rate Changes Most cities have updated their wastewater rates within the last three years. The most common year in which cities last updated rates was 2014, and only three cities have not updated their rates in the last 10 years. The overall rate increased for 96 percent of cities, which is higher than the 2009 survey. These responses indicate that cities are providing up-to-date pricing, which shows customers that wastewater bills will increase over time. Only four cities decreased their rates. Within the rate change, more often than not, most of the rates increased. Smaller cities were more likely to experience increases and decreases within the rate change itself. Table 4.9: Average Year of Wastewater System Rate Changes & Number of Cities That Experienced Increases and Decreases in Rate Change Last Rate Change Overall Rate Some of the Rates Both Increased and Decreased City Size Avg. Year Mode Increase Decrease Yes No <1,000 2013 2014 23 0 6 17 1,000-4,999 2013 2014 32 2 4 30 5,000-9,999 2012 2014 12 1 0 13 10,000-24,999 2014 2014 15 1 2 14 25,000-49,999 2014 2014 6 0 0 6 50,000 or more 2014 2014 5 0 2 4 All cities 2013 2014 93 4 14 84 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 22 The survey asked respondents to elaborate on why their rates increased and provided the option to select multiple reasons. Many catalysts are responsible for increased rates, with inflation/CPI and capital improvements being the highest. However, treatment and labor costs are also significant catalysts. Table 4.10 provides a further breakdown of the different reasons rates changed. Table 4.10: Number of Cities’ Catalysts for Wastewater Rate Change City Size S ta te / F e d e ra l M a n d a te In fl a ti o n /C P I T re a tm e n t C o st s L a b o r C o st s C a p it a l Im p ro v e m e n t R e a so n U n k n o w n O th e r <1,000 2 9 11 8 15 0 5 1,000-4,999 2 16 7 8 11 1 6 5,000-9,999 1 5 5 5 6 0 3 10,000-24,999 1 11 5 4 9 0 3 25,000-49,999 3 6 3 3 5 0 0 50,000 or more 3 5 4 4 4 0 2 All cities 12 52 35 32 50 1 19 Cities of less than 5,000 population are more likely to use a flat rate for wastewater or an “other” method, while cities between 5,000 and 49,999 population are likely to use a winter average of water consumption or a flat rate. Using a winter average of water consumption in summer months is more common than using all year round, except for cities of 50,000 population or more where all year is more common. Table 4.11: Number of Cities Using Types of Pricing Structures for Wastewater System Winter average water consumption used City Size Flat Rate Summer Months All Year Other <1,000 18 1 0 4 1,000-4,999 23 3 2 10 5,000-9,999 4 5 2 2 10,000-24,999 6 7 2 1 25,000-49,999 3 1 1 1 50,000 or more 1 1 3 1 All cities 55 18 10 19 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 23 Average Wastewater Bill The survey asked cities to indicate what a residential customer would be charged for using 5,000 gallons of water as measured by a three-fourths inch meter. Even though cities may offer different pricing structures that do not fit this scenario, this amount was chosen as a way to provide a best possible comparison among cities. If cities did not have a pricing structure that would allow them to bill for exactly 5,000 gallons, cities listed the lowest billing amount that would include the 5,000 gallons. The following results are presented both by city size and by region. The analysis consists of six regions: Coastal, Valley, Southern, Portland/Mt. Hood, Central, and Eastern. It should be noted that the values reported below are just that, values. Assumptions cannot be made that a utility is in the black or red. In other words, a lower value does not necessarily suggest a utility is meeting its maintenance and operating costs and generating enough revenue to fund capital investments. Similarly, a higher value does not necessarily suggest a city is generating more revenue than it needs. City Size The average wastewater bill stays somewhat consistent for all city sizes. By contrast, drinking water rates tend to decrease as city size increases. When adjusted for inflation, the average 2009 wastewater bill for all city sizes is less than the 2014 average wastewater bill (see Table 4.12). The amount the bill increased ranged from $1.20 to $10.93 depending on city size, and the average overall increase was $4.25. An analysis of the data specific to cities with a population between 10,000 and 24,999 was unable to identify a common causal factor in the almost $11 rate increase over the last five-year period. However, cities with a population of 25,000-49,999 represent some of the largest percentages of cities that have adjusted rates for inflation, treatment, labor costs and capital improvement compared to other city sizes. This may explain why that city size has an average increase of $7.12 over the last five years. Table 4.12 also shows the lowest and highest bill for each city size. The lowest bill was a city with a population less than 1,000, and the highest bill was a city with a population between 1,000 and 5,000. The information available for this survey limits an explanation for the lowest and highest cost. One possible explanation for the higher bill is that the city recently completed a facility upgrade in 2014. It appears that flat rate billing is a common pricing structure for both lower and higher wastewater bills. Eight out of 13 cities (62 percent) use flat rate billing when the wastewater bill is $30 or less. Six out of 11 (55 percent) offer flat rate billing when a wastewater bill is $60 or more. Three out of four cities (75 percent) with bills $70 or more use flat rate billing. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 24 Table 4.12: Average Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons with a ¾˝ meter for a Residential Customer (Dollars) City Size 2009 Adjusted* 2014 2014 Low 2014 High <1,000 38.49 42.86 15.00 70.00 1,000-4,999 43.50 44.70 21.25 90.00 5,000-9,999 40.21 43.94 23.05 63.85 10,000-24,999 34.76 45.69 27.79 67.08 25,000-49,999 32.50 39.62 27.04 61.99 50,000 or more 34.64 40.46 15.85 51.88 All cities 39.59 43.84 15.00 90.00 *Portland-Salem CPI-U used Region As illustrated in Table 4.13, each region’s average, highest and lowest bill is reported along with the range. Additionally, Appendix D provides charts of cities’ reported water bills for each region. The Eastern region has the lowest average wastewater bill ($40.25), and the Coastal region has the highest ($51.18), making it almost 27 percent more expensive than the Eastern region. Similar to the results for city size, wastewater rates are pretty consistent among regions, except for the Coastal region, which has a significantly higher average cost per 5,000 gallons. The Central region houses the lowest wastewater bill ($15) and the Southern region has the city with the highest bill ($90). While every region had a broad distribution of reported values, some notable differences exist. The Southern and Central regions are the only regions to have at least one city with a bill less than $20. As depicted in Table 4.13, the Southern region has the largest range among all six regions, but it has the city with the highest wastewater bill in the state. When excluded, the range decreases to about $40 and becomes comparable. Around $55 is a point where many regions have a jump in price for their wastewater bill (see Appendix D). This is most obvious when viewing the distribution for the Coastal region. It has five cities with a wastewater bill over $60, which is 36 percent of responding cities in that region. Almost all other regions only have about 10-13 percent of cities with bills greater than $60. Table 4.13: Average Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons with a ¾˝ meter for a Residential Customer by Region (Dollars) City Size 2014 Low High Range Coastal 51.18 28.00 79.18 51.18 Valley 45.44 30.00 70.00 40.00 Southern 41.54 15.85 90.00 74.15 Portland/Mt. Hood 42.00 23.05 61.99 38.94 Central 41.44 15.00 63.00 48.00 Eastern 40.25 21.25 59.89 38.64 All cities 43.84 15.00 90.00 75.00 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 25 Programs and Treatment With increases in population, the percentage of cities that have industrial wastewater pretreatment/ program increases (Table 4.14). Cities of less than 1,000 had the lowest percentage at 6 percent and cities with a population of 10,000-24,999 and 50,000 or more had the highest percentage at 83 percent. No clear trend exists between city size and the percentage of cities that provide reclaimed water services. For biosolids, it appears that as city size increases the percentage of cities that apply biosolids also increases, with the exception of cities with a population of 25,000-49,999. Table 4.14: Percentage of Cities That Provide Additional Wastewater Services City Size Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment/Program Reclaimed Water Biosolids <1,000 6 37 20 1,000-4,999 20 26 36 5,000-9,999 11 78 38 10,000-24,999 83 18 42 25,000-49,999 80 20 20 50,000 or more 83 33 50 All cities 33 33 33 Primary treatment is predominantly the highest level of treatment for responding cities with a population of less than 1,000. However, as city size increases, more cities provide secondary treatment as their highest level of treatment increases. Advanced or tertiary treatment varies depending on the city size. Cities with populations ranging from 5,000 to 9,999 represent the largest percentage of cities using advanced/tertiary treatment (44.5 percent). Overall, nitrogen removal is more common than phosphorous removal shown in Table 4.15. Table 4.15: Percentage of Cities that Provide Highest Level of Treatment and Nitrogen & Phosphorous Removal City Size Primary Secondary Advanced/ Tertiary Nitrogen Removal Phosphorous Removal <1,000 54 38 8 0 8 1,000-4,999 27 52 21 24 17 5,000-9,999 11 44.5 44.5 33 22 10,000-24,999 22 67 11 11 11 25,000-49,999 0 67 33 67 33 50,000 or more 0 67 33 17 0 All cities 26 52 22 20 14 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 26 Facilities and Infrastructure The average year of the original construction of the facilities varies by city size and ranges from the mid- 1960s to early 1980s. The 2014 survey results show that the smallest and largest city sizes have facilities that are relatively the same in age (34 and 33 years old), while cities with a population between 5,000 and 24,999 have facilities a decade older (46 and 49 years old). In contrast, the 2009 survey indicated the average age of treatment facilities for cities with a population of less than 1,000 was 19.5 years, and 40 years for cities with a population of 25,001 or more. This discrepancy could be attributed to the fact that different cities responded to the 2014 survey, which adjusted the average age. All city sizes, except those with populations between 1,000 and 9,999 had an upgrade in the last decade. Table 4.16: Average Age of Facility and Facility Upgrades City Size Avg. Year Built Avg. Year of Upgrade <1,000 1980 2006 1,000-4,999 1979 2001 5,000-9,999 1968 1996 10,000-24,999 1965 2005 25,000-49,999 1977 2008 50,000 or more 1981 2010 All cities 1976 2003 Like water systems, wastewater systems typically have more total miles of lines as city size increases. The average total miles of lines is greater for water than wastewater. Averages are similar to the 2009 survey except for cities with a population of 50,000 or more, where the 2014 average is lower by 200 miles. The lower 2014 average is because Portland, a city with more than 1,800 miles in sewer lines, was included in the 2009 average and not in 2014. If the 2009 average did not include Portland, it would be 349 miles, which is comparable to the 2014 average. Table 4.17: Average Total Miles of Sewer Lines, Not Including Laterals City Size Miles <1,000 6 1,000-4,999 16 5,000-9,999 33 10,000-24,999 71 25,000-49,999 163 50,000 or more 375 All cities 68 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 27 Every two years the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) determines the condition of Oregon’s waterbodies. Some waters have poor or concerning water quality conditions, and the term often used for these waters is water quality limited. When this is the case, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is established, which is a calculated pollutant a waterbody can receive to still meet water quality standards. The DEQ requires cities discharging to these waters to take measures to improve water quality. In general, 45 percent of cities are discharging wastewater to a waterbody that is water quality limited or under special regulations. This is about the same percentage of communities as the 2009 survey. Cities with populations ranging from 10,000 to 24,999 have the highest percentage at 73 percent and cities 1,000-4,999 have the lowest at 31 percent (Table 4.18). Cities provide a short commentary on what they are doing to address their discharge into water quality limited waters in Table D.5 in Appendix D. Table 4.18: Percentage of Cities Releasing Into Waters Identified as Water Quality Limited or That Have Special Regulation City Size TMDL* <1,000 33 1,000-4,999 31 5,000-9,999 56 10,000-24,999 73 25,000-49,999 50 50,000 or more 67 All cities 45 *TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load Stormwater Systems Rate Changes Most cities changed their stormwater rates in the last four years. Similar to water and wastewater rate updates, 2014 was the most common year for the last rate change for all city sizes, except cities with a population of less than 1,000 which did not have a mode. All cities except for one experienced an overall rate increase. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 28 Table 4.19: Average Year of Stormwater System Rate Changes and Number of Cities That Experienced Increases and Decreases in Rate Change Last Rate Change Overall Rate Change City Size Avg. Year Mode Increase Decrease <1,000 2012 - 1 1 1,000-4,999 2013 2014 7 0 5,000-9,999 2011 2014 7 0 10,000-24,999 2013 2014 13 0 25,000-49,999 2014 2014 3 0 50,000 or more 2012 2014 3 0 All cities 2013 2014 34 1 The survey asked respondents to elaborate on why their rates increased and provided the option to select multiple reasons. Several factors are catalysts for change, with inflation/CPI and capital improvement being the most predominant catalysts. No cities indicated state/federal mandates as a reason for increasing rates. Table 4.20: Number of Cities Catalysts for Stormwater Rate Change City Size S ta te /F e d e ra l M a n d a te In fl a ti o n /C P I T re a tm e n t C o st s L a b o r C o st s C a p it a l Im p ro v e m e n t R e a so n U n k n o w n O th e r N /A <1,000 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1,000-4,999 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 6 5,000-9,999 0 3 1 3 4 0 3 1 10,000-24,999 0 8 3 3 7 0 3 1 25,000-49,999 0 3 1 3 2 0 1 2 50,000 or more 0 3 1 1 2 0 3 0 All cities 0 23 7 10 16 0 12 11 Many cities have stormwater rates as a separate utility fee. Only two cities include it in wastewater fees. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 29 Table 4.21: Stormwater Rates City Size Separate Utility Fee No fee Included in Wastewater Other <1,000 2 2 0 1 1,000-4,999 7 5 0 4 5,000-9,999 11 2 0 0 10,000-24,999 9 1 2 1 25,000-49,999 5 0 0 0 50,000 or more 4 0 0 1 All cities 38 10 2 7 As shown in Table 4.22, as city size increases, cities are more likely to offer stormwater reductions/credits. Similarly, as city size increases, the monthly payment amount increases. Table 4.22: Percentage of Cities That Offer Stormwater Rate Reductions/Credits and Average Monthly Payment City Size Reduction/Credits Offered Avg. EDU Monthly Payment <1,000 0 $2.75 1,000-4,999 0 $2.30 5,000-9,999 15 $3.50 10,000-24,999 40 $7.25 25,000-49,999 60 $7.84 50,000 or more 60 $8.20 All cities 25 $4.78 System Characteristics Cities with larger populations have more miles of piped system, open channel, ditches and swales. This is expected given that the area of a city generally increases as the city population increases. Cities with a population of 50,000 or more have the largest miles of open channel, ditches and swales at 257 miles. The average square feet of residential established dwelling units (EDU) ranges from 940 square feet to 2,974 square feet. Cities with the lowest square footage of residential EDUs are those less than 1,000 population. Cities with a population of 5,000-9,999 had the highest average square feet at 3,207. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 30 Table 4.23: Average Miles of Stormwater System and Square Footage of Dwelling Units City Size Miles of Piped System Miles of Open Channel, Ditches, & Swales Square Feet of Residential EDU <1,000 4 4 940 1,000-4,999 8 3 1,250 5,000-9,999 34 14 3,207 10,000-24,999 52 13 2,777 25,000-49,999 123 53 2,407 50,000 or more 257 84 2,974 All cities 56 19 2,382 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 31 CHAPTER 5: ASSET MANAGEMENT Many cities are starting to use asset management, defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as, “the practice of managing infrastructure capital assets to minimize the total cost of owning and operating them while delivering the desired service levels.”2 Many agencies, like the EPA, devote programmatic and funding resources to aide communities in developing asset management programs. Part of the survey examines how many Oregon cities are utilizing asset management for water, wastewater and stormwater. The following results do not include cities who responded “not applicable” (N/A). Water In general, as the city size increases, the percentage of cities with a water asset management plan also increases. All cities that responded with populations of 25,000 or more have a water asset management plan. Cities of 1,000-4,999 population have the lowest percentage at 31 percent. Cities with a population of less than 1,000 have the second lowest percentage at 39 percent, but surprisingly have the highest percentage of adequately funded plans (67percent) along with cities with a population of 10,000-24,999. Compared to the 2009 survey results:  The percentage of responding cities that have an asset management plan for water has decreased for cities with less than 5,000 in population, and has increased in cities greater than 5,000 in population, with the exception of cities within 10,000-25,000 population which experience a slight decline.  The percentage of responding cities that have adequately funded plans has decreased for those with population ranging from 1,000-4,999, and for those with populations of 25,000 or more.  The percentage of responding cities with adequately funded plans with populations of <1,000, 5,000-9,999, and 10,000-24,999 has significantly increased. Table 5.1: Percentage of Cities with Water Asset Management Plans City Size % Have Plans % Adequately Funded Total Responses <1,000 39 67 23 1,000-4,999 31 22 29 5,000-9,999 73 38 11 10,000-24,999 82 67 11 25,000-49,999 100 40 5 50,000 or more 100 50 4 All cities 53 48 83 2 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/sustain/asset_management.cfm 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 32 Wastewater Once a city grows to a population of 5,000 or more, there is a drastic increase in the percentage of cities that have a wastewater asset management plan. Cities with a population ranging from 25,000 to 49,000 had the highest percentage at 100 percent, while cities with a population less than 1,000 had the lowest at 31 percent. Surprisingly, 80 percent of the small cities that have wastewater asset management plans have adequate funding for them as illustrated in Table 5.2. Cities with a population range of 1,000 to 4,999 have the lowest percentage of cities with funding at 11 percent, followed by cities of 50,000 or more at 33 percent. Compared to the 2009 survey results:  The percentage of responding cities that have a wastewater asset management plan has decreased for cities with a population of less than 5,000.  The percentage of responding cities that have a wastewater asset management plan has stayed the same roughly or has increased for cities with populations of 5,000 or more (note: 10,000-24,999 had a 4 percent decrease).  The percentage of responding cities with adequate funding has increased for all population categories except 1,000-4,999 and 50,000 or more. Table 5.2: Percentage of Cities with Wastewater Asset Management Plans City Size % Have Plans % Adequately Funded Total Responses <1,000 31 80 16 1,000-4,999 33 11 27 5,000-9,999 75 50 8 10,000-24,999 80 75 10 25,000-49,999 100 60 5 50,000 or more 75 33 4 All cities 51 50 70 Stormwater As indicated earlier, many small cities did not provide stormwater services, so it is not surprising to see that relatively few cities with population sizes less than 5,000 have stormwater asset management plans. All cities that responded with a population between 25,000 and 49,999 had a stormwater asset management plan as shown in Table 5.3. Cities with a population range of 10,000 to 24,999 have the highest percentage of adequately funded plans at 71 percent. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 33 Compared to the 2009 survey results:  The percentage of responding cities that have a stormwater asset management plan decreased for cities with a population of less than 5,000 and 10,000 to 24,999.  With the exception of cities with a population of less than 5,000, the percentage of responding cities with adequately funded plans has increased. Table 5.3: Percentage of Cities with Stormwater Asset Management Plans City Size % Have Plans % Adequately Funded Total Responses <1,000 0 0 8 1,000-4,999 20 0 20 5,000-9,999 67 33 9 10,000-24,999 64 71 22 25,000-49,999 100 60 5 50,000 or more 67 50 3 All cities 43 46 56 Asset Management Conclusions Based on the survey results, water asset management plans are the most common (53 percent of respondents reported having a water asset management plan), followed by wastewater (51 percent) and then stormwater (43 percent). Compared to 2009, for smaller cities that do have plans, the percentage reporting adequate funding has increased. There was a slight decrease in the percentage of cities with a population between 10,000 and 24,999 that have asset management plans. Note that these differences could be related to different cities responding to the survey in 2009 and 2014. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 34 APPENDIX A: SURVEY DESIGN & ADMINISTRATION The Community Service Center (CSC) worked with the League and a focus group to revise the 2009 survey in preparation for the 2014 version. Through the survey design process, the CSC and the League hosted three phone conferences with the focus group to develop new questions, review and revise questions from previous surveys, and discuss survey administration strategies. After gathering feedback, the CSC transferred the survey questions into Qualtrics, an online survey vendor that the University of Oregon uses. The CSC gave the survey link for review and comment to League staff and focus group members. After initial review of the online format, the CSC asked the focus group to take a pilot survey to test for organization, question order and content. The pilot consisted of two rounds of review. The goal of these reviews, once the survey was in online format, was to improve focus and clarity of the questions. To administer the actual survey, League staff provided a list of city managers/administrators or appropriate counterparts for all Oregon cities. The CSC used these contacts to send the survey link to 240 Oregon cities. The survey invitation described the survey, its significance, and how to complete it. The city manager/administrator or appropriate counterpart was asked to forward the survey to appropriate city staff. To help facilitate that process, the CSC included previously identified city staff contacts for water, wastewater, and stormwater from a preliminary survey. Anticipating that some cities had multiple contacts, the CSC designed the survey so multiple people from the same city could work in the same survey response. Thus, each city only had one submission. Limitations of the Survey Data As communicated in the 2009 survey, limitations exist due to the informational and voluntary nature of the survey. The responses are not representative of a statistically significant or scientifically valid data set. Because the responses are voluntary, one cannot draw conclusions about similar cities that did not participate. Even for the cities that did respond, it is not accurate to make comparisons for similarly sized systems due to differences in population served, physical design, economic climate, rates and charges, among other unique characteristics. Data Editing and Analysis Data editing involved review and adjustment of the data collected from survey respondents. The purpose of the editing was to control the quality of the data and foster accurate city representation. This included converting values into appropriate units or rates and interpreting vague data. Editing was a two-step process. The first step involved unit conversions for all values that were not submitted in the desired unit. Sometimes, assumptions were necessary to convert the data into the desired format. The second step involved flagging all data that was unclear or anomalistic. If a city had flagged values, they had the opportunity to review the data and correct or confirm the value. Data analysis involved calculating averages, percentages, and counts among other methods for various survey questions. Results were categorized into five city populations:  Less than 1,000;  1,000-4,999;  5,000-9,999;  10,000-24,999; 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 35  25,000-49,999; and  50,000 or more. Given the length of the survey, not all questions are discussed in the main report. However, the appendices present additional survey data that include some data analysis. The survey included one question for water and wastewater asking cities how much a residential customer would pay for 5,000 gallons of water or wastewater using a three-quarter inch meter. A handful of cities noted that they used bi-monthly billing. Often this led to a significantly higher value reported than cities that use monthly billing. To make the best comparisons among cities and minimize unfair speculation, the cities using bi-monthly values were adjusted if the city did not adjust them already. Flat rate bi- monthly cities were halved to reflect a monthly flat rate. For bi-monthly cities that had a service fee in addition to usage fees, adjustments were only made to the basic service charge for these cities. The usage fee was maintained. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 36 APPENDIX B: OVERALL RATE CHARACTERISTICS The average year does not take into account cities that listed more than 10 years since their last update. Water  Only 16 cities conducted a rate study more than 10 years ago, 10 of those cities are less than 5,000 in population. Twenty cities conducted a methodology study more than 10 years ago. Seventeen of those cities are less than 10,000 in population. Wastewater  Only 14 cities conducted a rate study more than 10 years ago, 12 of those cities are less than 10,000 in population. Nineteen cities conducted a methodology study more than 10 years ago, 13 are less than 10,000 in population. Stormwater  Only nine cities conducted a rate study more than 10 years ago, seven of these cities are less than 5,000 in population. Eight cities conducted a methodology study more than 10 years ago; six of these cities are less than 10,000 in population. Table B.1: Latest Water Rate Study & Methodology Update Water Wastewater Stormwater City Size Avg. Year Rate Study Avg. Year Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A <1,000 2011 2010 7 2011 2011 13 > 10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 24 1,000-4,999 2011 2011 3 2010 2010 6 2009 2010 25 5,000-9,999 2010 2011 0 2011 2011 2 2008 2009 2 10,000-24,999 2012 2012 1 2012 2011 2 2011 2011 0 25,000-49,999 2011 2012 0 2011 2011 0 2010 2011 1 50,000 or more 2010 2009 0 2014 2013 1 2012 2011 2 All cities 2011 2011 11 2011 2011 24 2010 2010 54 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 37 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A City Sizes <1,000 Lonerock 34 >10 yrs. ago N/A N/A Monument 130 2014 >10 yrs. ago 2014 >10 yrs. ago N/A Idanha 135 Detroit 205 2009 2006 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 N/A N/A N/A Ukiah 235 2005 N/A 2011 N/A N/A Lexington 255 N/A N/A N/A Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 2010 2010 N/A N/A Sodaville 310 2014 2014 N/A N/A Moro 325 2010 2010 Ione 330 Adams 350 2012 N/A N/A N/A Scotts Mills 364 2011 N/A N/A Haines 415 N/A N/A N/A St. Paul 416 2011 2010 >10 yrs. ago Mosier 433 2006 2006 2014 2014 N/A Rivergrove 445 N/A N/A N/A Huntington 445 2012 N/A 2013 N/A N/A Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 2010 2010 N/A 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 38 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Cove 550 2010 2014 Manzanita 615 2014 2014 N/A N/A Arlington 619 2014 2014 N/A Weston 675 2013 2014 N/A Condon 685 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A Powers 695 2011 2011 2012 2012 N/A Echo 705 N/A Yachats 800 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2008 2008 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Malin 815 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A Merrill 845 2010 2010 Adair Village 850 2012 N/A N/A Glendale 874 2012 2012 N/A Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 2014 Falls City 950 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Oakland 980 2005 2005 2008 2008 N/A Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 2014 2013 >10 yrs. ago N/A Yamhill 1,020 N/A Yoncalla 1,060 >10 yrs. ago 2014 >10 yrs. ago 2014 N/A Joseph 1,090 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Athena 1,125 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2010 2010 N/A Port Orford 1,135 2012 2012 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 39 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Riddle 1,185 2010 2011 2011 2012 >10 yrs. ago N/A Cascade Locks 1,200 2014 2014 2006 2006 N/A Gold Hill 1,220 2009 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Siletz 1,290 2014 2014 N/A Heppner 1,290 2011 2011 2014 2014 2006 N/A Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 N/A N/A N/A Depoe Bay 1,405 2010 2009 2010 2009 2009 N/A Gearhart 1,465 2010 N/A N/A Hines 1,565 N/A N/A N/A La Pine 1,670 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 2012 >10 yrs. ago 2012 >10 yrs. ago 2008 >10 yrs. ago John Day 1,745 2009 2009 2009 2009 N/A Banks 1,785 2009 2009 N/A N/A Irrigon 1,835 2006 2006 2006 2006 N/A Columbia City 1,945 2013 >10 yrs. ago 2013 >10 yrs. ago N/A Vale 1,976 2014 2007 >10 yrs. ago Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Union 2,240 2006 2012 >10 yrs. ago 2014 N/A 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 40 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Vernonia 2,450 2013 2013 N/A Lakeview 2,490 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A Gervais 2,520 Myrtle Point 2,525 2014 2014 N/A Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 2010 >10 yrs. ago 2010 Bandon 3,100 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Nyssa 3,200 Mt. Angel 3,300 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 2012 2012 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2010 N/A Aumsville 3,750 2009 2005 N/A Coquille 3,865 2011 2011 2006 2006 N/A Wood Village 3,875 2014 >10 yrs. ago 2014 2010 2014 2013 Phoenix 4,585 2013 N/A N/A Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 2006 2006 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A Warrenton 5,050 2007 Sheridan 6,170 2013 >10 yrs. ago 2013 >10 yrs. ago 2006 >10 yrs. ago Talent 6,170 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A N/A Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 41 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Molalla 8,200 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2007 2007 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Florence 8,466 2009 2009 Eagle Point 8,575 2009 >10 yrs. ago N/A 2009 2009 Independence 8,585 2011 2013 2011 2013 2005 Sweet Home 9,065 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2006 2006 Silverton 9,330 2013 2013 2013 Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Sandy 9,980 2014 >10 yrs. ago 2014 >10 yrs. ago 2009 2005 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 St. Helens 12,895 2011 2008 2011 2008 2011 2008 The Dalles 14,400 2012 2012 2013 2013 2007 2007 Dallas 14,800 2013 2013 2013 2013 N/A Lebanon 15,660 2010 2010 2012 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 N/A 2014 >10 yrs. ago Pendleton 16,600 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 Sherwood 18,771 2013 2014 2006 2006 2006 2006 Ashland 20,295 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2012 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago Milwaukie 20,500 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 2014 2014 2011 >10 yrs. ago 2012 >10 yrs. ago 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 42 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Rate Study Methodology N/A Forest Grove 22,000 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Roseburg 22,275 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A 2013 2013 Newberg 22,396 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 2014 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2011 2011 2008 2008 2008 2008 Redmond 26,590 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago 2012 2012 Oregon City 33,390 2009 2014 2012 Grants Pass 35,000 2007 2013 2007 2012 N/A Lake Oswego 36,990 2013 2010 2011 >10 yrs. ago 2007 >10 yrs. ago Tigard 49,135 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 2005 2005 >10 yrs. ago >10 yrs. ago N/A Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 2011 2009 2014 2014 2010 2010 Bend 81,000 Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 N/A N/A Salem 157,888 2014 2012 2014 2012 2014 2012 Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 43 Table B.2: Percent of Rate Revenue Obligated to Debt Service Average Percent of Rate Revenue Obligated City Size Water Wastewater Stormwater <1,000 26 33 0.4 1,000-4,999 15 20 0.0 5,000-9,999 31 25 11 10,000-24,999 20 18 4 25,000-49,999 11 24 5 50,000 or more 22 28 30 All cities 21 24 4 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population (percent) N/A (percent) N/A (percent) N/A City Sizes <1,000 Lonerock 34 100 N/A N/A Monument 130 0 60 N/A Idanha 135 N/A Detroit 205 25 N/A N/A Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 N/A N/A N/A Ukiah 235 45 50 N/A Lexington 255 26 N/A N/A Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 26 N/A N/A Sodaville 310 5 N/A N/A Moro 325 5.25 15 N/A Ione 330 Adams 350 20 N/A N/A Scotts Mills 364 N/A N/A Haines 415 4 35 0 N/A St. Paul 416 Mosier 433 Rivergrove 445 N/A N/A N/A Huntington 445 N/A N/A N/A Fossil 475 Gates 485 N/A N/A Mount Vernon 525 10 N/A N/A 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 44 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population (percent) N/A (percent) N/A (percent) N/A Cove 550 25 15 0 Manzanita 615 23.5 N/A N/A Arlington 619 75 50 Weston 675 Condon 685 0 N/A 19 0 N/A Powers 695 N/A N/A N/A Echo 705 N/A N/A N/A Yachats 800 N/A N/A N/A Malin 815 N/A N/A N/A Merrill 845 15 Adair Village 850 7.7 24 N/A Glendale 874 38 62 0 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 N/A N/A N/A Falls City 950 N/A N/A Oakland 980 55 45 2 Donald 980 0 0 N/A City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 N/A 15 N/A Yamhill 1,020 15 15 N/A Yoncalla 1,060 4 15.75 N/A Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 0 N/A 29.21 0 N/A Port Orford 1,135 11.56 35.54 Riddle 1,185 N/A Cascade Locks 1,200 0 24 N/A Gold Hill 1,220 10 0 0 Siletz 1,290 N/A Heppner 1,290 24 N/A N/A Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Depoe Bay 1,405 N/A N/A N/A Gearhart 1,465 N/A N/A N/A Hines 1,565 N/A 25 N/A La Pine 1,670 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 45 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population (percent) N/A (percent) N/A (percent) N/A Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1705 Clatskanie 1,729 N/A N/A N/A John Day 1,745 31 16 N/A Banks 1,785 30 N/A N/A Irrigon 1,835 40 31 N/A Columbia City 1,945 34 0 0 Vale 1,976 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Union 2,240 N/A 25 N/A Vernonia 2,450 N/A 55 N/A Lakeview 2,490 N/A Gervais 2,520 Myrtle Point 2,525 24 35 N/A Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 0 2.85 0 Bandon 3,100 9.4 8.7 Nyssa 3,200 Mt. Angel 3,300 0 0 0 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 26 17 N/A Aumsville 3,750 6 22 N/A Coquille 3,865 17 54 N/A Wood Village 3,875 N/A N/A N/A Phoenix 4,585 11 N/A N/A Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 44 37 N/A Warrenton 5,050 Sheridan 6,170 49 5 N/A Talent 6,170 25.25 N/A N/A Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 Florence 8,466 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 46 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population (percent) N/A (percent) N/A (percent) N/A Eagle Point 8,575 N/A 0 Independence 8,585 N/A 10 N/A Sweet Home 9,065 26 35 N/A Silverton 9,330 12.4 28.6 N/A Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 28.1 38.9 16 Sandy 9,980 30 21 16 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 N/A N/A N/A St. Helens 12,895 17 14 14 The Dalles 14,400 16.6 12.4 N/A Dallas 14,800 29 15 N/A Lebanon 15,660 2.7 1.4 N/A Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 N/A 6.8 N/A Pendleton 16,600 15 32 0 Sherwood 18,771 41 No debt No debt Ashland 20,295 39 15 N/A Milwaukie 20,500 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 23 41 N/A Forest Grove 22,000 N/A N/A N/A Roseburg 22,275 0 N/A 0 Newberg 22,396 20 25 0 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2 N/A N/A Redmond 26,590 7 31 2 Oregon City 33,390 3.5 14 N/A Grants Pass 35,000 9 16.1 N/A Lake Oswego 36,990 33 52 10 Tigard 49,135 11 6 2 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 13 26 N/A Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 N/A N/A N/A Bend 81,000 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 47 Water Wastewater Stormwater City Population (percent) N/A (percent) N/A (percent) N/A Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 23.3 N/A N/A Salem 157,888 30 30 30 Portland 592,120 APPENDIX C: DRINKING WATER RATE STRUCTURE, PRICING AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Table C.1: Drinking Water Rate Structure & Cost per 5,000 gallons The average year does not take into account cities that listed over 10 years since their last update. Rate Structure City Size # of Responses Avg. Last Year of Rate Change Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Average Cost per 5,000 gal. <1,000 35 2012 15 10 0 10 $39.95 1,000-4,999 40 2013 11 11 1 17 $34.04 5,000-9,999 15 2013 5 3 0 7 $33.40 10,000-24,999 16 2014 3 6 0 7 $31.68 25,000-49,999 6 2014 1 2 0 3 $32.65 50,000 or more 6 2014 2 1 1 2 $26.21 All cities 117 2013 37 33 2 46 $34.88 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er City Sizes <1,000 Lonerock 34 > 10 yrs. ago  $10.00 Monument 130 2014  $22.75 Idanha 135 2014  $41.81 Detroit 205 2011  $45.00 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 48 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Ukiah 235 2006  $41.25 Lexington 255 2014  $33.00 Westfir 255 2012  $40.00 Nehalem 280 2010  $40.80 Sodaville 310 2014  $60.00 Moro 325 2014  Ione 330 2014  $40.00 Adams 350 2013  $42.50 Scotts Mills 364 2011  $63.87‡ Haines 415 2014  $32.00 St. Paul 416 2014  $61.20 Mosier 433 2006  $40.71 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 2014  $32.00 Fossil 475 Gates 485 2014  $52.10 Mount Vernon 525  $38.00 Cove 550 2010  $32.90 Manzanita 615 2014  $42.00 Arlington 619 2005  $32.00 Weston 675 2013  $45.92 Condon 685 2012  $27.30 Powers 695 2014  $52.20 Echo 705 2012  $30.30 Yachats 800 2006  $50.00 Malin 815 > 10 yrs. ago  $28.00 Merrill 845 2010  $38.50 Adair Village 850 2012  $69.75 Glendale 874 2013  $37.00 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 2014  $37.50 Falls City 950 2014  $41.96 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 49 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Oakland 980 2014  $10.89 Donald 980 2014  $45.00 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 2014  $40.00 Yamhill 1,020 > 10 yrs. ago  $37.56 Yoncalla 1,060 2014  $37.00 Joseph 1,090 2014  $27.87 Athena 1,125 > 10 yrs. ago  $29.00 Port Orford 1,135 2014  $53.96 Riddle 1,185 2008  $40.00 Cascade Locks 1,200 2013  $28.72 Gold Hill 1,220 2014  Siletz 1,290 2014  $59.00 Heppner 1,290 2013  $37.40 Dunes City 1,310 Bay City 1,310 2014  $26.93 Rockaway Beach 1,325 2011  $31.70‡ Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 2014  $36.00‡ Gearhart 1,465 2014  $20.00 Hines 1,565 2008  $36.00‡ La Pine 1,670 > 10 yrs. ago  $30.14 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 2011  $33.02 John Day 1,745 2014  $34.00 Banks 1,785 2014  $37.00 Irrigon 1,835 2014  $40.05 Columbia City 1,945 2014  $48.73 Vale 1,976 2014  $30.68 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 50 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Union 2,240 2014  $27.69 Vernonia 2,450 2013  $48.75 Lakeview 2,490 2011  $15.00 Gervais 2,520 2014  $26.38 Myrtle Point 2,525 2013  $32.43 Jacksonville 2,840 2014  $30.79 Estacada 2,880 2014  $35.84 Bandon 3,100 2007  $17.40 Nyssa 3,200 2013  $29.25 Mt. Angel 3,300 2009  $23.51 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 2014  $60.75 Aumsville 3,750 2013  $31.82 Coquille 3,865 2007  $28.80 Wood Village 3,875 2014  $28.02 Phoenix 4,585 2014  $34.51 Philomath 4,625 2014  $30.05 Veneta 4,635 2014  $31.65 City Sizes 5,000 – 9,999 Creswell 5,031 2006  $44.29 Warrenton 5,050 2014  $30.26 Sheridan 6,170 2007  $20.10 Talent 6,170 2014  $41.97 Madras 6,255 2014  $27.74 Sutherlin 7,930 2014  $38.46 Molalla 8,200 > 10 yrs. ago  $27.44 Florence 8,466 2014  $29.90 Eagle Point 8,575 2014  $24.88 Independence 8,585 2014  $51.38 Sweet Home 9,065 2014  $32.86 Silverton 9,330 2014  $29.16 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 51 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Astoria 9,500 2013  $33.98‡ Cottage Grove 9,785 2014  $46.50 Sandy 9,980 2013  $22.10 City Sizes 10,000 – 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 2014  $16.80 Cornelius 12,161 2014  $42.02 St. Helens 12,895 2013  $43.00‡ The Dalles 14,400 2014  $57.94 Dallas 14,800 2014  $23.58 Lebanon 15,660 2014  $51.10 Troutdale 16,015 2014  $14.85 Coos Bay 16,160 Pendleton 16,600 2014  $32.55 Sherwood 18,771 2012  $44.24 Ashland 20,295 2014  $38.01 Milwaukie 20,500 2014  $27.46 Klamath Falls 21,200 2014  $14.26 Wilsonville 21,550 2014  $32.01 Forest Grove 22,000 2013  $23.00 Roseburg 22,275 2012  $24.51 Newberg 22,396 2014  $21.54 City Sizes 25,000 – 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2014  $18.55 Redmond 26,590 2014  $26.14 Oregon City 33,390 2014  $30.27 Grants Pass 35,000 2014  $22.98 Lake Oswego 36,990 2014  $40.66 Tigard 49,135 2014  $57.32 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 2014  $43.09 Springfield 59,990 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 52 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e In cl in in g B lo ck R at e D ec lin in g B lo ck R at e O th er Medford 76,300 2012  $10.57 Bend 81,000 2014  $27.40 Hillsboro 81,310 2014  $22.16 Beaverton 93,000 2014  $31.18 Salem 157,888 2014  $22.84 Portland 592,120 ‡Bi-monthly billing city where values adjusted for comparable comparison. See Data Editing and Analysis in Appendix A for explanation. Charts C.2A-C.2F: Water Bill a Residential Customer Would Pay for 5,000 Gallons Using a ¾” Meter As mentioned in the report, please keep in mind that the values reported below are just values. Assumptions cannot be made that a utility is in the black or red. In other words, a lower value does not necessarily suggest a utility is meeting its maintenance and operating costs and generating enough revenue to fund capital investments. Similarly, a higher value does not necessarily suggest a city is generating more revenue than it needs. Although the survey asked cities to report the minimum value a customer would pay if the city could not bill for exactly 5,000 gallons, the bi-monthly billing cities have values adjusted to reflect a monthly rate for a more representative comparison. See Appendix A Data Editing and Analysis for more information on the adjustments. See footnotes to determine which cities were adjusted. ‡Indicates a city with bi-monthly billing and an adjusted bi-monthly reported value. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 53 Chart C.2A: Coastal Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons Bandon is a city with a significantly lower rate in the Coastal region. Its last effective rate change occurred in 2007, and its city charter only allows voters to approve rate increases. The city is considering infrastructure improvements should rates increase in the future. Chart C.2B: Valley Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons Adair Village raised rates in 2013 to invest in capital improvements to address a 60percent water loss rate. Covering operation and maintenance costs and ensuring the ability to pay bonds are also other components of the rate increase. $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 B an d o n G ea rh ar t B ay C it y C o q u ill e Fl o re n ce W ar re n to n ‡R o ck aw ay B e ac h M yr tl e P o in t ‡A st o ri a ‡D ep o e B ay N eh al em M an za n it a Ya ch at s P o w er s P o rt O rf o rd Si le tz To le d o $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 Sh er id an N ew b er g Sa le m D al la s G er va is M o la lla Si lv er to n P h ilo m at h V en et a A u m sv ill e Sw ee t H o m e H al se y Ya m h ill M t. V er n o n W es tf ir Id an h a Fa lls C it y A lb an y C re sw el l D et ro it D o n al d C o tt ag e G ro ve Le b an o n In d ep e n d en ce G at es So d av ill e St . P au l ‡S co tt s M ill s A d ai r V ill ag e 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 54 Chart C.2C: Southern Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons The Medford Water Commission (MWC) provides the City of Medford’s drinking water and is an autonomous agency of the City. Phoenix, and Talent receives its water from the MWC as well, and Ashland uses MWC as a supplemental source. Talent maintains its own distribution and storage system. $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 M ed fo rd O ak la n d G ra n ts P as s R o se b u rg Ea gl e P o in t Ja ck so n vi lle P h o en ix G le n d al e Yo n ca lla A sh la n d Su th e rl in R id d le Ta le n t 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 55 Chart C.2D: Portland/Mt. Hood Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons Chart C.2E: Central Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons While the Dalles have a higher bill compared to other cities in the Central region historically, they have not raised rates. Only recently in 2014 they increased rates to addressing rising infrastructure needs. $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Tr o u td al e G la d st o n e W es t Li n n Sa n d y H ill sb o ro Fo re st G ro ve M ilw au ki e W o o d V ill ag e O re go n C it y B ea ve rt o n W ils o n vi lle C la ts ka n ie Es ta ca d a B an ks La ke O sw eg o C o rn el iu s ‡S t. H el en s Sh er w o o d C o lu m b ia C it y V er n o n ia Ti ga rd $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 K la m at h F al ls R ed m o n d B en d M ad ra s M al in C as ca d e Lo ck s La P in e M er ri ll M o si er Th e D al le s 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 56 Chart C.2F: Eastern Region Cities’ Water Bill for 5,000 gallons Lonerock has not experienced a rate increase since 1998. $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 $50 Lo n er o ck La ke vi ew M o n u m en t M t. A n ge l C o n d o n U n io n Jo se p h A th en a N ys sa Ec h o V al e A rl in gt o n H ai n es H u n ti n gt o n P en d le to n C o ve Le xi n gt o n Jo h n D ay ‡H in es H ep p n er Io n e Is la n d C it y Ir ri go n U ki ah A d am s W es to n 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 57 Table C.3: Drinking Water Production Characteristics City Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date <1,000 7.7 84 0.4 2032 12 2007 1,000-4,999 0.4 78 13 2034 25 2009 5,000-9,999 1.4 88 2.2 2028 5 2010 10,000-24,999 3.3 88 7 2046 9 2011 25,000-49,999 4.6 90 11 2017 6 2012 50,000 or more 15.5 96 31 2033 6 2010 All cities 4.0 83 10 2033 63 2009 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date City Sizes <1,000 Lonerock 34 Yes Monument 130 No Idanha 135 No Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 N/A N/A N/A No Ukiah 235 Unknown None Don't use additives Unknown Yes 2005 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 58 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 0.11 98 0.20 2045 Yes 2005 Sodaville 310 0.02 100 No Treatment Unknown Yes 2004 Moro 325 No Ione 330 Adams 350 0.06 94 Beyond 2025 Yes 2005 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 0.12 100 0.12 Unknown No St. Paul 416 0.06 100 0.50 2014 No Mosier 433 0.07 95 0.17 Unknown No Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 0.06 0.13 20 + years Yes 2014 Mount Vernon 525 No Cove 550 Manzanita 615 0.31 84 0.65 2030 Yes 2010 Arlington 619 120.6* 0* No Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 Echo 705 0.21 88 0.55 Unknown Yes 2012 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 59 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Yachats 800 0.13 75 0.50 2043 Yes 2006 Malin 815 0.06 95 0.16 unknown No Merrill 845 0.15 Do not treat No Adair Village 850 0.25 60 0.75 Unknown No Glendale 874 0.12 97 0.36 Unknown Yes 2003 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 0.09 0.20 2028 Yes Falls City 950 No Oakland 980 Never Yes Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 0.53 90 2030 Yes 2011 Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 0.35 97 250 2050 No Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 0.2 95 N/A 1993 Yes Port Orford 1,135 Riddle 1,185 Cascade Locks 1,200 0.26 50 0.50 No Gold Hill 1,220 No Siletz 1,290 <0.05 90 0.23 Yes Heppner 1,290 0.38 76 Do not treat Undetermined Yes 2011 Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 60 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Bay City 1,310 0.6 1.3 Yes Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 0.21 77 0.55 Yes Gearhart 1,465 2032 Yes Hines 1,565 0.59 0* N/A Not foreseen Yes 2004 La Pine 1,670 0.24 91 2025 Yes 2013 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 0.23 100 0.48 Unknown Yes 2008 John Day 1,745 85-90 0.60 Unlikely No Banks 1,785 0.25 0.25 2020 Yes 2010 Irrigon 1,835 0.45 85 0.38 2025 Yes 2010 Columbia City 1,945 0.14 78 N/A 2033 or later Yes 2013 Vale 1,976 0.21 94 0.38 No Waldport 2,080 0.24 23* Rogue River 2,145 0.37 81 0.64 2039 Yes 2014 Union 2,240 1.0 0* 1.5 Yes Vernonia 2,450 Yes Lakeview 2,490 98 2.7 Unknown No Gervais 2,520 1.0 No Myrtle Point 2,525 0.35 73 1.7 Not foreseen Yes 2001 Jacksonville 2,840 0.84 90 Do not treat Yes 2014 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 61 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Estacada 2,880 0.5 100 0.8 Unknown Yes 2002 Bandon 3,100 0.54 67 2029 Yes 2003 Nyssa 3,200 1.1 Yes Mt. Angel 3,300 0.31 100 N/A Unknown Yes 2010 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 0.9 75 1.5 2090 No Aumsville 3,750 99 Coquille 3,865 0.52 98 never No Wood Village 3,875 0.4 91 0.89 2044 Yes 2013 Phoenix 4,585 Yes Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 0.55 82 1.2 ~2055 Yes 2012 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 0.63 76 2020 Yes Warrenton 5,050 1.3 25percent (Jun-Sep) 60percent (Oct-May) 2.3 2026 No Sheridan 6,170 2.5 2020 No Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 1.0 2.0 Unknown No Florence 8,466 0.93 95 1.7 Not foreseen Yes 2010 Eagle Point 8,575 2017 Yes 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 62 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 2 88 2.0 2050 Yes 2009 Silverton 9,330 1.3 92 2.5 2035 No Astoria 9,500 1.9 2.7 Cottage Grove 9,785 1.2 85-90 2.6 2019 No Sandy 9,980 0.81 89 2.1 2040 Yes 2010 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 N/A N/A N/A Yes St. Helens 12,895 1.5 99.5 2.5 Beyond 2030 Yes 2013 The Dalles 14,400 3.2 86 8.5 Unforeseen No Dallas 14,800 2.3 90 4.9 2040 No Lebanon 15,660 1.9 4.0 >20 years No Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 Pendleton 16,600 5.3 100 10.1 WFP: Unforeseen. Wells: ~2024 Yes 2003 Sherwood 18,771 1.9 3.7 2063 Yes 2009 Ashland 20,295 2.9 95 6.0 2053 Yes 2014 Milwaukie 20,500 2.5 85 4.4 Unforeseen No Klamath Falls 21,200 6.7 100 15.1 2070 Yes 2012 Wilsonville 21,550 4.8 36 6.6 2023 Yes 2012 Forest Grove 22,000 Yes 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 63 City Population Avg. Daily Production in 2013 (MG) Amount of Avg. Daily Production Sold (not including city use) Peak Flow of Water Treated in a 24-hr. Period in 2013 (MG) Year Avg. Daily Production Exceeds Design Capacity Water Conservation & Management Plan Approval Date Roseburg 22,275 4.6 100 8.4 No Newberg 22,396 2.5 92 4.5 2025 Yes 2014 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2.6 100 6.8 2014 Yes 2010 Redmond 26,590 5.6 85 13.2 2020 Yes 2013 Oregon City 33,390 Yes Grants Pass 35,000 5.5 96.9 13.0 ~2025-2030 Yes 2014 Lake Oswego 36,990 4.9 80 11.3 Yes Tigard 49,135 10.3 Yes 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 64 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 7.3 94.5 23.8 2051 Yes 2007 Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 27 ~92 56 2030 Yes 2009 Bend 81,000 11.8 N/A 25 Updating Yes 2011 Hillsboro 81,310 14.7 94 28 2019 Yes 2010 Beaverton 93,000 6.9 94 12.1 Unforeseen Yes Salem 157,888 25.4 100 43.7 Unforeseen Yes 2014 Portland 592,120 *Values flagged for review, but city unable to confirm value. Table C.4: Water Loss Measurements & Meter Characteristics Water Loss Meters Used Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost # of Cities Using Radio # of Cities Using Touch # of Cities Using Manual City Size Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other <1,000 16 13 0 0 1 1 9 15 1,000-4,999 29 22 5 0 0 12 9 28 5,000-9,999 9 8 0 0 1 8 4 8 10,000-24,999 14 12 1 0 1 8 5 10 25,000-49,999 6 6 0 0 0 2 1 5 50,000 or more 6 2 0 3 1 4 5 4 All cities 80 63 6 3 4 35 33 70 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 65 Water Loss Meters Used City Population Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost Radio (%) Touch (%) Manual (%) Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 No 0 0 100 Idanha 135 Yes  0 0 100 Detroit 205 Yes Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 No 0 0 0 Ukiah 235 No 0 100 0 Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 No 0 0 100 Sodaville 310 Yes  0 0 100 Moro 325 No 0 100 0 Ione 330 Adams 350 Yes  0 0 100 Scotts Mills 364 Yes  0 0 100 Haines 415 No 0 0 0 St. Paul 416 Yes  0 0 100 Mosier 433 Yes  99 0 0 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 66 Water Loss Meters Used City Population Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost Radio (%) Touch (%) Manual (%) Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other Fossil 475 Gates 485 Yes  0 100 0 Mount Vernon 525 No 0 0 100 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Yes  0 50 50 Arlington 619 No 0 100 0 Weston 675 Condon 685 0 0 100 Powers 695 Yes Echo 705 Yes  0 0 100 Yachats 800 Yes  0 100 0 Malin 815 Yes  0 95 5 Merrill 845 No 0 0 100 Adair Village 850 Yes  0 0 100 Glendale 874 Yes  0 0 100 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 Yes  0 100 0 Falls City 950 No 0 100 0 Oakland 980 No Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 67 Water Loss Meters Used City Population Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost Radio (%) Touch (%) Manual (%) Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other Island City 1,015 No 0 75 25 Yamhill 1,020 Yes Yoncalla 1,060 Yes  0 0 100 Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 Yes  0 0 100 Port Orford 1,135 Yes  0 0 100 Riddle 1,185 Yes  0 0 100 Cascade Locks 1,200 Yes  10 80 10 Gold Hill 1,220 No 0 0 100 Siletz 1,290 Yes  0 0 100 Heppner 1,290 Yes  40 40 20 Dunes City 1,310 No N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 Yes  37 0 63 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 Yes  0 0 100 Gearhart 1,465 Yes  25 0 75 Hines 1,565 No 635 0 35 La Pine 1,670 Yes  100 0 0 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 68 Water Loss Meters Used City Population Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost Radio (%) Touch (%) Manual (%) Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other Clatskanie 1,729 Yes  0 0 100 John Day 1,745 Yes  100 0 0 Banks 1,785 No 0 0 100 Irrigon 1,835 Yes  0 0 100 Columbia City 1,945 Yes  100 0 0 Vale 1,976 No 100 0 0 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Yes  0 0 100 Union 2,240 Yes  Vernonia 2,450 Yes  100 Lakeview 2,490 No 0 0 100 Gervais 2,520 No 99 0 1 Myrtle Point 2,525 Yes  0 0 100 Jacksonville 2,840 Yes  0 99 1 Estacada 2,880 Yes  0 0 100 Bandon 3,100 Yes  0 60 40 Nyssa 3,200 Yes 0 99 1 Mt. Angel 3,300 Yes  0 0 100 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 No 0 96 4 Aumsville 3,750 No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 69 Water Loss Meters Used City Population Measured Method to Determine Amount Lost Radio (%) Touch (%) Manual (%) Comparison of Production & Customer Meter Volumes Estimate Recently Adopted IWA/AWWA Water Loss Methodology Other Coquille 3,865 Yes  100 0 0 Wood Village 3,875 Yes  0 100 0 Phoenix 4,585 Yes  0 80 20 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 Yes  100 0 0 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 70 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 Yes  40 0 60 Warrenton 5,050 Yes  6.4 45 48 Sheridan 6,170 No 5 95 0 Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 Yes  80 0 20 Florence 8,466 Yes  35 20 45 Eagle Point 8,575 Yes  100 0 0 Independence 8,585 Yes  Sweet Home 9,065 Yes  0 25 75 Silverton 9,330 Yes  56.45 0 43.55 Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 No 0 0 100 Sandy 9,980 Yes  8 0 92 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 Yes  5 95 0 St. Helens 12,895 Yes  43 0 57 The Dalles 14,400 Yes  100 0 0 Dallas 14,800 Yes  50 0 50 Lebanon 15,660 Yes  0 25 75 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 Pendleton 16,600 Yes  0 85 15 Sherwood 18,771 Yes  0 0 100 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 71 Ashland 20,295 Yes  15 0 85 Milwaukie 20,500 Yes  0 0 100 Klamath Falls 21,200 Yes  50 30 20 Wilsonville 21,550 Yes   20 55 25 Forest Grove 22,000 Yes Roseburg 22,275 Yes  0 0 100 Newberg 22,396 Yes  100 0 0 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 Yes  0 0 100 Redmond 26,590 Yes  100 0 0 Oregon City 33,390 Yes  0 0 100 Grants Pass 35,000 Yes  0 0 100 Lake Oswego 36,990 Yes  0 0 100 Tigard 49,135 Yes  1 24 75 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 Yes  0 10 90 Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 Yes   33 11.5 55.5 Bend 81,000 Yes  100 0 0 Hillsboro 81,310 Yes  65 0.4 34.6 Beaverton 93,000 Yes  0 2 98 Salem 157,888 Yes 15 85 0 Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 72 Table C.5: Water System Characteristics City Size Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) <1,000 25,988,626 8 2 1 1 1966 2000 1 1,087,391 1,000-4,999 80,087,547 19 2 2 2 1964 2004 1 1,867,815 5,000-9,999 277,638,458 46 2 3 5 1969 2005 4 7,510,300 10,000-24,999 810,565,871 107 6 5 2 1938 2005 11 19,064,818 25,000-49,999 1,109,071,261 185 12 8 4 1943 2000 16 32,588,480 50,000 or more 2,442,314,780 427 9 6 13 1953 2005 46 539,806,677 All cities 437,562,291 76 4 3 3 1960 2003 9 54,853,942 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 954,830 1.0 2 1 0 2004 2008 29,000 Monument 130 1 0 Idanha 135 7,838,640 252,000 Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 73 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Ukiah 235 Unknown 1 1 0 1978 2005 Unknown Unlimited Lexington 255 18,180,000 300,000 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 27 0 0 2.0 1927 2009 1 300,000 Sodaville 310 16,102,020 4.5 6 3 0 1980 2002 N/A Unknown Moro 325 0 0 0 2007 Ione 330 Adams 350 5.0 1 1 0 1989 2000 N/A 540,000 Scotts Mills 364 1 0 2011 Haines 415 44,000,000 5.0 0 0 0 1910 1981 0.035 1,152,000 St. Paul 416 13,050,000 1.0 1 0 0 1950 1979 0.432 432,000 Mosier 433 23,160,000 Unknown 4 5 1.0 2006 2014 864,000 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 14,773,248 7.0 1 2 0 1950 2009 Mount Vernon 525 23,927,000 1 1.0 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 25,704,000 20 3 2 7.0 Unknown 2003 2,345,760 Arlington 619 73,733,100 9.0 4 4 0 1964 2004 0 4,000,000* Weston 675 Condon 685 5.0 Underway 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 74 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Powers 695 25,350,000 Echo 705 40,000,000 6.0 1 2 0 1980 1980 2.3 1,000,000 Yachats 800 37,030,000 14 3 6 <1 No 1998 1.0 864,000 Malin 815 25,350,000 6.0 1 1 0 1930 1999 0.125 Merrill 845 28,543,680 5.0 2 1962 None 0.05 500,000 Adair Village 850 27,360,000 14 2 1 6.0 1942 1957 1.2 1,938,951 Glendale 874 17,980,000 6.8 2 1 0 1971 2013 0.504 1,564,000 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 23,112,000 6.0 2 0 N/A 1969 1998 0.75 1,316,547 Falls City 950 Oakland 980 2003 2014 Donald 980 33,624,000 0 0 0 1970s 2015 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 63,856,856 10 1 1 0 1994 2014 0.27 750,000 Yamhill 1,020 29,160,000 5.0 Yoncalla 1,060 38,868,396 35 1 0 8.0 Unknown 1996 Unknown Joseph 1,090 0 0 1.0 1992 1992 1,000,000 Athena 1,125 39,525,000 10 0 1 0 1993 N/A 1,296,000 Port Orford 1,135 17 2.0 Riddle 1,185 Cascade Locks 1,200 58,176,000 15 4 1 0 1888 1978 0 9,694,080 Gold Hill 1,220 0 1 0 1981 1981 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 75 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Siletz 1,290 40,500,000 10 2 0 0 1973 2013 0.4 335,520 Heppner 1,290 42,768,000 15 1 1 18 1930s 2006 1.5 1,800,000 Dunes City 1,310 123,943,376 0 0 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 11 1 2 5.0 1980 2013 N/A Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 5 0 1.0 1950s 2007 0.72 720,000 Gearhart 1,465 0 0 0 2011 2011 Hines 1,565 37,500,000 15 4 1 0 1928 2001 N/A Unknown La Pine 1,670 24 2 2.0 2002 2009 1,441,440 Brownsville 1,670 35,113,220 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 89,668,300 48 3 14 1.6 1985 2004 1.0 1,200,000 John Day 1,745 103,320,000 20 4 3 0 late 1960's 2004 N/A 816,480 Banks 1,785 2012 0.288 576,000 Irrigon 1,835 92,160,000 22 9 0 1.5 1964 2009 1.5 Columbia City 1,945 45,604,350 16 2 4 0 2007 2014 0.31 Vale 1,976 46,866,000 3 1 0.5 1950 2005 0.765 1,152,000 Waldport 2,080 91,196,160 23 2 6.0 1927 2013 0.75 Rogue River 2,145 54,613,440 15 N/A 1 0 1974 2010 1.0 1,500,000 Union 2,240 0 1968 1989 0.75 Vernonia 2,450 22,152,000 Unknown 3 3 20 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 76 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Lakeview 2,490 1 1 1.0 Underway 4 Gervais 2,520 59,306,650 5.5 2 0 0 1997-98 Unlimited Myrtle Point 2,525 63,961,200 16 1 2 0.75 1933 2001 1.73 1,870,000 Jacksonville 2,840 173,607,267 29 3 2.0 1955 1997 2 2,000,000 Estacada 2,880 84,000,000 16 0 0 0 1970 2006 2 2,000,000 Bandon 3,100 90,300,600 30 3 N/A 1.0 1953 2000 2 Nyssa 3,200 20 5 0 0 1995 N/A 1,440,000 Mt. Angel 3,300 123,734,160 20 0 1 0.5 Unknown 2014 N/A 2,541,600 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 147,475,680 35 4 3 6.5 1960 2014 3 1,700,000 Aumsville 3,750 114,791,000 11 1 1 0 1960 1985 Coquille 3,865 193,680,000 25 4 4 1.15 1930 2009 2.75 1,762,000 Wood Village 3,875 33,655,440 12 3 2 0 1951 2011 2,300,000 Phoenix 4,585 115,170,300 20 4 6.5 2000 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 147,953,000 32 2 2 0 1967 2013 0.72 3,196,800 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 172,652,018 30 1 1 1990 2009 3.8 3,800,000 Warrenton 5,050 314,870,372 85 2 2 10 1978 2006 6 6,500,000 – 20,000,000* Sheridan 6,170 20 0 0 11 1927 2008 4 Unknown Talent 6,170 87,055,750 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 77 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 365,900,000 37 1 0 2.0 1977 1998 4 2,000,000 Florence 8,466 188,299,344 45 3 3 0 1968 2004 3 3,000,000 Eagle Point 8,575 38 3 3 5.0 1960s 2011 7,400,000 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 426,732,780 65 0 3 0 2009 2009 6 21,182,400 Silverton 9,330 264,095,000 58 3 7 7.0 1911 1982 5.6 9,700,000 Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 401,502,400 49 4 3 0 1992 2008 4 7,000,000 Sandy 9,980 29 4 3 5.7 1972 2013 2 6,000,000 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 32 0 1 0 1940 2014 N/A Unlimited St. Helens 12,895 218,521,800 76 1 2 0.45 1910's 2006 6 41,000,000 The Dalles 14,400 449,600,000 104 3 13 7.0 1949 2007 6.05 10,400,00 Dallas 14,800 830,922,500 46 3 3 4.0 1920 2007 8.5 13,000,000 Lebanon 15,660 702,820,800 56 1 1 3.0 1946 1996 4 24,000,000 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 Pendleton 16,600 610,000,000 108 14 8 0.2 1900-1910 2003 15 23,400,000 Sherwood 18,771 383,040,000 70 2 4 6.0 Unknown 2009 15 15,000,000 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 78 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Ashland 20,295 503,180,340 126 4 16 1.48 1949 1995 10 13,513,000 Milwaukie 20,500 871,250,000 112 4 4 0 1903 2013 7.3 7,300,000 Klamath Falls 21,200 2,456,450,000 260 23 8 0 1895 2014 26.5 26,500,000 Wilsonville 21,550 255,000,000 106 2 3 0 2002 None 15 20,000,000 Forest Grove 22,000 421,800,000 Roseburg 22,275 2,073,970,880 192 21 4 5.0 1935 1992 12 20,000,000 Newberg 22,396 760,800,000 110 1 4 0.5 1900s 2008 9 6,000,000 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 900,000,000 118 25 6 10 1920 1990 5 2,000,000 Redmond 26,590 1,105,634,000 164 10 3 0 1940 2014 17.9 17,942,400 Oregon City 33,390 167 5 14 <1 ~1940 2012 22 52,000,000 Grants Pass 35,000 927,722,304 187 13 5 0 1930s 1984 18 75,000,000 Lake Oswego 36,990 1,092,000,000 250 13 11 4.9 1968 2001 16 16,000,000 Tigard 49,135 1,520,000,000 225 6 6 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 1,354,492,540 285 5 1 11.5 1920 2005 40 32,000,000 Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 2,982,200,000 475 12 9 16.4 1948 1997 45 91,000,000 Bend 81,000 3,066,000,000 466 4 7 10 2014 12 32,000,000 Hillsboro 81,310 1,915,363,956 302 3 2 7.0 1983 34 36,840,062 Beaverton 93,000 2,628,000,000 284 4 10 20 1977 19 2,900,000,000 Salem 157,888 2,707,832,182 749 23 5 15 1936 2006 126 147,000,000 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 79 City Population Annual Avg. Water Consumption for Residential Customers (gallons) Total Miles of Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Service Levels or Zones Avg. Distance of Water Source From City (Miles) Avg. Year of Original Construction Date of Last Major Upgrade Design Capacity Water Plant(s) (MGD) Average Capacity Water Source (GPD) Portland 592,120 *Values flagged for review, but city unable to confirm value. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 80 Table C.5: Water Storage # of Cities per Raw Storage Type # of Cities per Treated Storage Type City Size Closed Tank Covered Urban Reservoir ASR Other Reservoir Closed Tank Covered Urban Reservoir ASR Other Reservoir <1,000 6 2 0 1 0 10 2 0 0 5 1,000-4,999 5 1 0 0 7 20 1 0 0 6 5,000-9,999 0 0 0 0 2 7 1 0 0 3 10,000-24,999 1 0 0 1 3 12 2 2 0 1 25,000-49,999 1 1 0 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 50,000 or more 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 2 0 1 All cities 13 4 0 2 15 58 9 5 0 16 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) City Sizes <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 Idanha 135 Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 Ukiah 235 0.40 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 81 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 1.25 1.5 Sodaville 310 0.15 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 0.25 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 0.04 St. Paul 416 0.1 0.1 Mosier 433 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 0.50 Mount Vernon 525 1 1 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 0.03 0.08 2.35 Arlington 619 Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 82 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Echo 705 0.35 Yachats 800 0.5 1.25 Malin 815 2 Merrill 845 0.05 Adair Village 850 1.1 Glendale 874 1.563 1 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 0.075 Falls City 950 Oakland 980 2 2 2 Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 1 Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 3 0.75 Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 0.75 Port Orford 1,135 Riddle 1,185 Cascade Locks 1,200 0.4 Gold Hill 1,220 1 Siletz 1,290 1.5 1 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 83 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Heppner 1,290 3 Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 1.3 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 2.8 2 Gearhart 1,465 0.25 1 Hines 1,565 0.85 La Pine 1,670 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 1 1 John Day 1,745 2.4 Banks 1,785 1.7 Irrigon 1,835 1 Columbia City 1,945 0.4 1 Vale 1,976 0.375 0 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 2 Union 2,240 Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 4.5 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 84 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Gervais 2,520 2 Myrtle Point 2525 3 Jacksonville 2,840 3.45 Estacada 2,880 1.5 Bandon 3,100 1.1 3 Nyssa 3,200 3.1 Mt. Angel 3,300 1.3 N/A Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 81 2.3 Aumsville 3,750 Coquille 3,865 215 2.9 Wood Village 3,875 1.43 Phoenix 4,585 1.85 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 3.5 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 4.2 Warrenton 5,050 17 7.3 Sheridan 6170 60 4 Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 85 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Molalla 8,200 3.2 Florence 8,466 4.5 Eagle Point 8,575 7.4 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 3 Silverton 9,330 420 4.45 Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 4.3 Sandy 9,980 4.75 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 1.5 St. Helens 12,895 0.3 5.7 The Dalles 14,400 167 20 Dallas 14,800 430 4 4 50 Lebanon 15,660 6 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 Pendleton 16,600 1.8 5.43 900 Sherwood 18,771 3 Ashland 20,295 1,047 7.1 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 86 Raw Treated City Population Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Closed Tank (MG) Covered Urban Reservoir (MG) ASR (MG) Other (MG) Reservoir (MG) Milwaukie 20,500 6 Klamath Falls 21,200 21 Wilsonville 21,550 8.67 Forest Grove 22,000 Roseburg 22,275 0.7 11.4 Newberg 22,396 12 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 1 2 2 Redmond 26,590 10 Oregon City 33,390 18.3 Grants Pass 35,000 20.5 Lake Oswego 36,990 26 Tigard 49,135 27 500 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 20.6 Springfield 59,990 Medford 76,300 36.2 Bend 81,000 30.35 Hillsboro 81,310 3,300 18 31.9 Beaverton 93,000 2,700 38.3 450 Salem 157,888 47 98 500 Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 87 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 88 APPENDIX D: WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE, PRICING, AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS Table D.1: Wastewater Rate Structure & Pricing # of Responses Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. City Size Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er <1,000 23 2013 18 1 0 4 $42.86 1,000-4,999 37 2013 23 3 2 10 $44.70 5,000-9,999 13 2012 4 5 2 2 $43.94 10,000-24,999 16 2014 6 7 2 1 $45.69 25,000-49,999 6 2014 3 1 1 1 $39.62 50,000 or more 6 2014 1 1 3 1 $40.46 All cities 101 2013 55 18 10 19 $43.84 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er City size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 2014  $49.95 Idanha 135 Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 Ukiah 235 2011  $27.00 Lexington 255 2014  Westfir 255 $41.00 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 89 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 2014  Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 St. Paul 416 2014  $70.00 Mosier 433 2014  $63.00 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 2014  $35.50 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 2014  $35.00 Cove 550 2014  $45.00 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 2007  $38.00 Weston 675 2013  $57.50 Condon 685 2012  $44.00 Powers 695 2013  $47.00 Echo 705 2012  $45.00 Yachats 800 2008  $50.00 Malin 815 2013  $15.00 Merrill 845 2010  $35.00 Adair Village 850 2014  $46.06 Glendale 874 2013  $48.00 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 2014  $32.00 Falls City 950 2013  $46.00 Oakland 980 2014  N/A Donald 980 2014  $30.00 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 90 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 Yamhill 1,020 > 10 yrs. ago  $51.68 Yoncalla 1,060 2014  $47.00 Joseph 1,090 2014  $21.25 Athena 1,125 2010  $42.00 Port Orford 1,135 2014  $79.18 Riddle 1,185 2012  $90.00 Cascade Locks 1,200 > 10 yrs. ago  $42.50 Gold Hill 1,220 2014  Siletz 1,290 2014  $63.00 Heppner 1,290 2013  $29.10 Dunes City 1,310 Bay City 1,310 2014  $33.95 Rockaway Beach 1,325 2011  $50.80‡ Culver 1,370 2010  $36.00 Depoe Bay 1,405 2014  $28.00‡ Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 2014  $48.00‡ La Pine 1,670 2010  Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 2011  $41.50 John Day 1,745 2014  $39.50 Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 2014  $59.89 Columbia City 1,945 2014  $41.21 Vale 1,976 2014  $40.60 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 2014  $30.60 Union 2,240 2014  $41.63 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 91 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er Vernonia 2,450 2013  N/A Lakeview 2,490 2011  $27.16 Gervais 2,520 > 10 yrs. ago  $37.00 Myrtle Point 2,525 2013  $38.24 Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 2014  $34.15 Bandon 3,100 2011  $32.36 Nyssa 3,200 2010  $48.00 Mt. Angel 3,300 2009  $37.50 Boardman 3,405  Toledo 3,465 2014  $71.45 Aumsville 3,750 2013  $38.62 Coquille 3,865 2013  $61.00 Wood Village 3,875 2014  $49.80 Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 2013  $41.00 Veneta 4,635 2013  $46.26 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 2006  $43.03 Warrenton 5,050 2014  $48.66 Sheridan 6,170 Talent 6,170 2014  $34.25 Madras 6,255 2014  $53.00 Sutherlin 7,930 2014  $34.10 Molalla 8,200 2006  $40.99 Florence 8,466 2014  $50.71 Eagle Point 8,575 Independence 8,585 2014  $42.93 Sweet Home 9,065 2014  $49.60 Silverton 9,330 2014  $63.85 Astoria 9,500 2013  2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 92 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er Cottage Grove 9,785 2014  $43.09 Sandy 9,980 2008  $23.05 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 2014  $27.79 Cornelius 12,161 2014  $44.08 St. Helens 12,895 2013  $51.92‡ The Dalles 14,400 2014  $44.78 Dallas 14,800 2014  $42.90 Lebanon 15,660 2014  $67.08 Troutdale 16,015 2014  Coos Bay 16,160 2014  $62.16 Pendleton 16,600 2014  $28.35 Sherwood 18,771 2014  $37.99 Ashland 20,295 2014  $49.76 Milwaukie 20,500 2013  $51.21 Klamath Falls 21,200 2014  $46.92 Wilsonville 21,550 2014  $55.24 Forest Grove 22,000 2013  $30.80 Roseburg 22,275 Newberg 22,396 2014  $44.40 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2014  $33.62 Redmond 26,590 2014  $29.81 Oregon City 33,390 2013  $45.66 Grants Pass 35,000 2014  $27.04 Lake Oswego 36,990 2014  $61.99 Tigard 49,135 2014  City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 2014  $51.88 Springfield 59,990 2014  $45.36 Medford 76,300 2013  $15.85 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 93 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Rate structure Average Cost per 5,000 gal. Fl at R at e W in te r av er ag e w at er co n su m p ti o n u se d in su m m er m o n th s W in te r av er ag e w at er c o n su m p ti o n u se d a ll ye ar O th er Bend 81,000 2014  $48.36 Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 2014  Salem 157,888 2014  $40.85 Portland 592,120 ‡Bi-monthly billing city where values adjusted for comparable comparison. See Data Editing and Analysis in Appendix A for explanation. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 94 Charts D.2A-C.2F: Wastewater Bill a Residential Customer Would Pay for 5,000 Gallons Using A ¾” Meter As mentioned in the report, please keep in mind that the values reported below are just values. Assumptions cannot be made that a utility is in the black or red. In other words, a lower value does not necessarily suggest a utility is meeting its maintenance and operating costs and generating enough revenue to fund capital investments. Similarly, a higher value does not necessarily suggest a city is generating more revenue than it needs. Although the survey asked cities to report the minimum value a customer would pay if the city could not bill for exactly 5,000 gallons, the bi-monthly billing cities have values adjusted to reflect a monthly rate for a more representative comparison. See Appendix A Data Editing and Analysis for more information on the adjustments. See footnotes to determine which cities were adjusted. ‡Indicates a city with bi-monthly billing and an adjusted bi-monthly reported value. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 95 Chart D.2A: Coastal Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons Chart D.2B: Valley Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 ‡D ep o e B ay B an d o n B ay C it y M yr tl e P o in t P o w er s W ar re n to n Ya ch at s Fl o re n ce ‡R o ck aw ay B e ac h C o q u ill e C o o s B ay Si le tz To le d o P o rt O rf o rd $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 D o n al d H al se y M o u n t… G er va is A u m sv ill e Sa le m M o la lla P h ilo m at h W es tf ir D al la s In d ep e n d en ce C re sw el l C o tt ag e G ro ve N ew b er g Sp ri n gf ie ld Fa lls C it y A d ai r V ill ag e V en et a Sw ee t H o m e Ya m h ill A lb an y Si lv er to n Le b an o n St . P au l 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 96 Chart D.2C: Southern Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons One potential reason for Riddle’s higher rates is that it recently increased its rates in 2012 for its completed 2014 upgrade to its facilities. Chart D.2D: Portland/Mt. Hood Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 $80 $90 M ed fo rd G ra n ts P as s R o gu e R iv er Su th e rl in Ta le n t Yo n ca lla G le n d al e A sh la n d R id d le $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 Sa n d y G la d st o n e Fo re st G ro ve W es t Li n n Es ta ca d a Sh er w o o d C o lu m b ia C it y C la ts ka n ie C o rn el iu s O re go n C it y W o o d V ill ag e M ilw au ki e ‡S t. H el en s W ils o n vi lle La ke O sw eg o 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 97 Chart D.2E: Central Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons The information available at this time limits an explanation for Malin’s lower water bill. Chart D.2F: Eastern Region Cities’ Wastewater Bill for 5,000 gallons $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Jo se p h U ki ah La ke vi ew P en d le to n H ep p n er H u n ti n gt … M t. A n ge l A rl in gt o n Jo h n D ay V al e U n io n A th en a C o n d o n C o ve Ec h o ‡H in es N ys sa M o n u m en t W es to n Ir ri go n $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 M al in R ed m o n d M er ri ll C u lv er C as ca d e Lo ck s Th e D al le s K la m at h F al ls B en d M ad ra s M o si er 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 98 Table D.3: Wastewater System Characteristics City Size Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" <1,000 6 2 1 21 1,000-4,999 16 3 1 4 5,000-9,999 33 8 1 0 10,000-24,999 71 7 1 1 25,000-49,999 163 10 1 0 50,000 or more 375 79 1 0 All cities 68 10 1 6 City Population Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" City size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 5 Idanha 135 N/A N/A N/A N/A Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 0 0 0 0 Ukiah 235 Unknown 1 1 100 Lexington 255 N/A N/A N/A N/A Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 5 1 1 0 St. Paul 416 2 2 1 0 Mosier 433 3 0 1 0 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 99 City Population Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 9 2 1 0 Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 Echo 705 5 1 0 Yachats 800 10 5 1 0 Malin 815 6 1 1 5 Merrill 845 5 3 1 none Adair Village 850 14 2 1 0 Glendale 874 5 2 1 66 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 4 3 1 0 Falls City 950 Oakland 980 9 2 1 100 Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 10 6 0 0 Yamhill 1,020 1 Yoncalla 1,060 20 1 1 0 Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 7 1 1 0 Port Orford 1,135 13 4 1 Riddle 1,185 1 Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220 0 1 Siletz 1,290 8 2 1 0 Heppner 1,290 Unknown 1 1 0 Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 2 1 0 Rockaway Beach 1,325 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 100 City Population Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" Culver 1,370 7 1 1 0 Depoe Bay 1,405 5 1 0 Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 13 2 0 0 La Pine 1,670 21 5 1 0 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 10 5 1 0 John Day 1,745 19 3 1 0 Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 30 3 1 0 Columbia City 1,945 16 4 0 0 Vale 1,976 2 1 5 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 11 7 1 0 Union 2,240 20 1 1 0 Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 5 1 0 Gervais 2,520 5.5 to 6 2 3 0 Myrtle Point 2,525 14 3 1 0 Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 17 3 1 100 Bandon 3,100 24 7 1 0 Nyssa 3,200 19 4 1 0 Mt. Angel 3,300 12 0 1 0 Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 30 5 1 1 Aumsville 3,750 9 1 1 0 Coquille 3,865 19 2 1 0 Wood Village 3,875 8.1 3 0 0 Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 23 3 1 0 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 101 City Population Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" Creswell 5,031 22 2 1 0 Warrenton 5,050 Sheridan 6,170 18 2 1 0 Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 27 5 1 0 Molalla 8,200 33 6 1 0 Florence 8,466 48 38 1 0 Eagle Point 8,575 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 64 0 1 0 Silverton 9,330 25 7 1 0 Astoria 9,500 1 Cottage Grove 9,785 46 4 1 0 Sandy 9,980 19 6 1 0 City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 24 2 0 0 St. Helens 12,895 58 9 1 0 The Dalles 14,400 94 8 1 Unknown Dallas 14,800 49 2 1 <1 Lebanon 15,660 51 3 1 <1 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 90 23 2 0 Pendleton 16,600 82 6 1 0 Sherwood 18,771 63 0 0 Ashland 20,295 110 6 1 0 Milwaukie 20,500 75 5 0 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 76 8 1 8 Forest Grove 22,000 Roseburg 22,275 Newberg 22,396 84 8 1 0 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 102 City Population Total Miles of Sewer Lines (not laterals) # of Pump/Lift Stations # of Treatment Plants Percent "combined sewer" West Linn 25,425 193 4 0 0 Redmond 26,590 135 13 1 <1 Oregon City 33,390 130 14 1 <1 Grants Pass 35,000 170 3 1 0 Lake Oswego 36,990 189 14 0 0 Tigard 49,135 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 222 16 1 0 Springfield 59,990 240 13 1 0 Medford 76,300 261 5 1 0 Bend 81,000 446 414 1 0 Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 280 0 2 0 Salem 157,888 800 28 2 0 Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 103 Table D.4: Wastewater System Production & Capacity 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity of Plants City Size Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity <1,000 1980 2006 33 2 1 9 9 58 2029 1,000-4,999 1979 2001 89 1 1 17 15 57 2032 5,000-9,999 1968 1996 387 4 2 6 2 62 2029 10,000-24,999 1965 2005 1,107 11 5 14 5 66 2026 25,000-49,999 1977 2008 909 9 3 12 5 75 2020 50,000 or more 1981 2010 6,366 49 21 145 22 74 2021 All cities 1976 2003 825 7 3 22 11 61 2029 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 Idanha 135 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Ukiah 235 1979 2013 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 100 2050 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 104 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 1980 2012 30 0.12 0.09 17.3 17.3 65 St. Paul 416 1979 2014 15 0.15 0.08 1.5 0.07 75 2018 Mosier 433 2009 2009 Unknown Unknown Unknown 0.09 N/A 50 2031 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 1964 2006 75 75* 75* 75 2020 Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 Echo 705 1976 1985 15 0.75 0.20 0.12 0.12 34 Unknown 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 105 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Yachats 800 2009 2009 54 0.50 0.25 1.3 0.25 50 2043 Malin 815 1931 2010 20 0.10 0.07 0.14 0.14 70 Unknown Merrill 845 2004 22 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.12 Adair Village 850 1958 1999 35 8.1 1.9 0.34 0.34 90 2014 Glendale 874 1978 Current 45 0.0 0.31 0.45 0.17 33 2044 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 1969 2009 23 3.6 0.98 22.9 Falls City 950 Oakland 980 2002 2002 60 5.0 2.0 0.72 0.27 Unknown Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 1968 1988 4.6 0.81 0.13 0.14 0.28 50 2025 Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 1953 2013 21 0.09 0.05 0.31 0.31 40 Port Orford 1,135 Riddle 1,185 2014 Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220 0.09 0.06 0.3 0.30 35 Siletz 1,290 1973 1991 1.8 0.1 0.5 0.24 75 Heppner 1,290 1953 1994 6.9 0.31 0.11 0.13 0.13 ~75 2020 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 106 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Dunes City 1,310 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 1995 2012 104 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.17 90 2078 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 1975 2012 30 2032 Depoe Bay 1,405 1974 2003 169 1.1 0.51 1.6 1.6 60 Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 N/A N/A 0.0 Lagoon Lagoon N/A N/A Lagoon Lagoon La Pine 1,670 1989 2006 40 0.14 0.09 0.25 0.25 50 2030 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 1979 2014 89 1.3 0.12 2.0 0.15 75 2020 John Day 1,745 1949 1979 0.6 0.6 40 Unforeseen Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 2004 N/A 32 N/A 0.18 0.45 0.45 40 2025 Columbia City 1,945 39 N/A N/A N/A N/A Vale 1,976 2005 2005 73 0.425 0.425 35 Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 1997 2000 109 0.48 0.4 0.6 0.48 50 2037 Union 2,240 1977 2000 56 0.24 0.17 365* 365* 50 2040 Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 Unknown 2001 Unknown Unknown 50 2030 Gervais 2,520 2003 61 7.38 3.79 0.46 0.22 Myrtle Point 2,525 1953 1971 92 1.31 0.66 1.07 0.36 100 2013 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 107 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 1973 2009 140 1.9 1.2 5.0 0.54 50 Unknown Bandon 3,100 1971 2014 119 0.35 0.35 3.2 0.5 69 2029 Nyssa 3,200 2009 2009 74 0.29 0.15 1.46 0.42 50 2030 Mt. Angel 3,300 1992 2007 93 1.19 0.90 2.69 0.42 44 Unknown Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 1954 2000 240 1.3 0.66 6.5 6.5 75 2030 Aumsville 3,750 1960 1985 70.8 1.5 0.33 1.2 0.30 90 2020 Coquille 3,865 2012 N/A 240 5.1 0.44 3.3 0.53 40 2060 Wood Village 3,875 124 2.5 0.36 Unknown 0.50 80 2040 Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 2002 2002 149 1.14 0.40 2.4 1.25 50- 60percent 2025 City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 2007 Warrenton 5,050 Sheridan 6,170 1959 1988 Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 1977 1977 263 2.5 0.20 4.9 1.3 100 2014 Molalla 8,200 1977 2006 434 3.8 2.2 3.0 1.4 54 2025 Florence 8,466 1960 2000 255 1.2 0.9 6.0 1.3 40 2030 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 108 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Eagle Point 8,575 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 1961 1980 426 7.5 1.5 5.0 1.5 70 2050 Silverton 9,330 1962 1999 356 5.7 1.4 12 2.5 40 2030 Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 1952 2004 553 4.8 5.2 8.3 1.8 70-80 2025 Sandy 9,980 1998 2003 419 3.6 1.0 4.0 1.9 65 Unknown City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A St. Helens 12,895 1959 1991 1,466 11.0 14.6 32 6.4 50 Unknown The Dalles 14,400 1960 2005 710 3.2 2.5 4.2 4.15 68.5 2014 Dallas 14,800 1978 2000 12 2.0 15 5.0 40 2050 Lebanon 15,660 1977 2012 1,795 17 5.7 21 3.0 70 2024 Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 1959 1991 1,124 9 3.0 6.4 4.9 95 2021 Pendleton 16,600 1953 2012 850 2.9 2.5 3.3 3.2 65 >2030 Sherwood 18,771 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Ashland 20,295 1936 2002 738 3.5 2.3 8.5 3.3 70 2015 Milwaukie 20,500 1973 18 20 10 70 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 1971 2014 770 10.6 6.2 10.6 4.0 50 2034 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 109 2013 Peak Flow Design Capacity Plants City Population Avg. Year of Original Plant Construction Avg. Year of Last Major Upgrade Total Amount of Wastewater Treated in 2013 (MG) Wet Weather (MGD) Dry Weather (MGD) Total Peak Wet Weather (MGD) Total Dry Weather (MGD) Current Operating Capacity (percent) Projected Year of Max. Capacity Forest Grove 22,000 Roseburg 22,275 Newberg 22,396 1987 2014 1,400 20 5.0 18 8.0 80 2025 City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 N/A N/A 5.0 3.5 1.5 N/A N/A 80 2025 Redmond 26,590 1976 2008 598 2.2 1.8 3.0 3.0 50 2020 Oregon City 33,390 1982 2010 Grants Pass 35,000 1974 2007 2,125 21.3 5.6 21.7 6.2 95 2016 Lake Oswego 36,990 Tigard 49,135 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 2009 2,296 13.5 16.1 63 9.6 50 2030 Springfield 59,990 1984 2008 9,800 80.1 23.5 277 34 Medford 76,300 1969 2013 5,867 22.8 22.8 85 20 85 2020 Bend 81,000 1980 Underway 2,070 12 ~100 2014 Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Salem 157,888 1964 2009 11,800 79.4 155 35 86 Unknown Portland 592,120 *Values flagged for review, but city unable to confirm value. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 110 Table D.5: Wastewater Programs City Size Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of Applied Property <1,000 18 19 64 - 20 88 - 1,000-4,999 35 35 65 - 33 82 - 5,000-9,999 9 9 46 - 8 85 - 10,000-24,999 12 11 10 - 12 100 - 25,000-49,999 5 5 50 - 5 100 - 50,000 or more 6 6 100 - 6 100 - All cities 85 85 57 - 84 89 - City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 No Yes No Idanha 135 No No No Detroit 205 No Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 No No No Ukiah 235 No Yes 20 City-owned field No Lexington 255 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 111 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 No No No Haines 415 No Yes 100 City farm No St. Paul 416 No Yes 100 City-owned property leased to farmer for nursery stock and crop for animals Yes 100 City-owned property leased for nursery stock and crop productions for animals Mosier 433 No No No Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 No No Yes 100 City property Weston 675 Condon 685 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 112 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Powers 695 No No No Echo 705 No No No Yachats 800 No No Yes 50 Private property owner is in the business of accepting solids Malin 815 No Yes 100 City-owned farm land No Merrill 845 No Yes Private lessee No Adair Village 850 No No No Glendale 874 Yes Yes 0.45 Sewer Treatment Plant Yes 100 Private fenced farm file Number 3373 Permit Number 100742 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 No No No Falls City 950 No No Oakland 980 No No No Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 No No No Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 No No No Joseph 1,090 No Yes Athena 1,125 No No Yes 100 Farm ground Port Orford 1,135 Yes No No Riddle 1,185 No No No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 113 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220 No No Yes Farm Siletz 1,290 No No No Heppner 1,290 Yes Yes 85 Private farm land and a private golf course Yes 100 Private farm land Dunes City 1,310 No No No Bay City 1,310 No No No Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 No Yes 100 City-owned farm land No Depoe Bay 1,405 No No Yes 100 Private farm land Gearhart 1,465 No No No Hines 1,565 No Yes 100 Neighboring Burns/ Hines jointly owned meadow grass field No La Pine 1,670 No No No Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 No No Yes 100 City-owned property, sheep herd contracted use John Day 1,745 No No Yes 100 Private ranch grazing land Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 No No No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 114 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Columbia City 1,945 No No Vale 1,976 No Yes 20 City farm ground No Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Yes No Yes 100 Private farm land Union 2,240 No Yes 40 County golf course Yes 100 Private farm land ownership; Hay production Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 No Yes 100 Private farm use; Hay production, grazing No Gervais 2,520 No No No Myrtle Point 2,525 Yes No No Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 No No Yes 4 Private properties as requested & agreed Bandon 3,100 Yes Yes Yes 100 Agricultural lands Nyssa 3,200 No No No Mt. Angel 3,300 Yes No No Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465 No No Yes 3.32 Private agricultural land Aumsville 3,750 No Yes 10 75 acres of city- owned farm land No Coquille 3,865 No No No Wood Village 3,875 Yes No No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 115 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635 No No Yes 100 City-owned grass fields used to harvest hay City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 No Yes 100 City-owned fields No Warrenton 5,050 Sheridan 6,170 No Yes 5 Farm land for hay No Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930 Yes Yes 32 Golf Course Yes 55 Private Molalla 8,200 No Yes 25 Pasture land, lawn, nursery, stock irrigation water Florence 8,466 No No No Eagle Point 8,575 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065 No No No Silverton 9,330 No Yes 20 The Oregon Gardens Yes 100 Private agricultural land Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 No Yes 100 City-owned golf course, and a ~10 acres of undeveloped private property No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 116 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Sandy 9,980 No Yes 40 Private wholesale nursery Yes 100 Private agricultural City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 Yes N/A N/A No St. Helens 12,895 Yes No No The Dalles 14,400 Yes No Yes 100 Private agricultural lands Dallas 14,800 Yes No No Lebanon 15,660 Yes No Yes 100 Private farm land Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 No No Yes 100 Private grazing land Pendleton 16,600 Yes No Yes 100 City-owned land at Pendleton Airport - 1,000 acres currently available - 350 acres required every year. Sherwood 18,771 No No No Ashland 20,295 Yes No No Milwaukie 20,500 Yes No No Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 Yes Yes 18 City's Wastewater Treatment Plant property Yes 100 Farm land 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 117 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Forest Grove 22,000 Roseburg 22,275 Newberg 22,396 Yes Yes 1 Public golf course No City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 No No No Redmond 26,590 Yes Yes 50 City-owned hay fields Yes 100 Public and privately owned farm land Oregon City 33,390 Yes No No Grants Pass 35,000 Yes No No Lake Oswego 36,990 Yes No No Tigard 49,135 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 Yes No No Springfield 59,990 Yes Yes 100 Public landscape irrigation Yes 100 Public-owned poplar tree biocycle farm and other public land 30percent. Off-site private farm land 100percent. Medford 76,300 Yes No No Bend 81,000 Yes Yes 100 Private golf course Yes 100 Private farm land Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 No No No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 118 City Population Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program Reclaimed Water Percent of Total Reclaimed Water Reused/ Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Biosolids Application Percent of Biosolids Applied Ownership & Use of the Applied Property Salem 157,888 Yes No Yes 100 All privately-owned farm land growing sod, grass seed, and pasture Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 119 Table D.6: Wastewater Treatment and Quality Limitations Percentage of Cities Percentage of Cities City Size P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) <1,000 54 38 8 0 8 33 1,000-4,999 28 52 21 24 17 31 5,000-9,999 11 44 44 33 22 56 10,000-24,999 22 67 11 11 11 73 25,000-49,999 0 67 33 67 33 50 50,000 or more 0 67 33 17 0 67 All cities 26 52 22 20 14 45 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? City size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 Idanha 135 No Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 120 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Ukiah 235  No Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415  No St. Paul 416  No Mosier 433  Yes Releasing to the Columbia River which has a temperature TMDL. Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619  No Weston 675 Condon 685 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 121 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Powers 695 Echo 705  Yes Lagoon system; permit allows discharge to the Umatilla River from Nov. 1 through Apr. 30 with limits on BOD, Ecoli and TSS. Operating under a MAO which allows higher limits than normal. Only discharge from January through March; pumping limit is .120 MGD. Yachats 800  Yes Malin 815  No Merrill 845  Yes Irrigating alfalfa with reclaimed water. Adair Village 850  No Glendale 874   No Prairie City 910 Halsey 917  No Falls City 950 Oakland 980  Yes Donald 980 City Sizes 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060  Yes 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 122 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125  No Port Orford 1,135  Riddle 1,185  No Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220  Yes Siletz 1,290  No Heppner 1,290  Yes TBD by DEQ. Currently, BOD(5) 45 mg/L weekly, TSS 45 mg/L weekly, May - Oct 0.15 MGD, Nov-April 0.25 MGD. Dunes City 1,310 Bay City 1,310  Yes Test / CBOD, TSS, Fecal Col Bact, Enterococcus and PH Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370  No Depoe Bay 1,405  No Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 No La Pine 1,670  No Brownsville 1,670 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 123 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729  No John Day 1,745  No Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835    No Columbia City 1,945 Vale 1,976  No Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145  Yes Union 2,240  No Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490  No Gervais 2,520  No Myrtle Point 2,525  Yes Monitoring BOD and TSS removal. New treatment plant is under construction and will facilitate meeting additional treatment requirements. Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880  Yes Bandon 3,100    Yes In compliance with all discharge permit requirements. Nyssa 3,200    No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 124 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Mt. Angel 3,300  Yes Release lagoon-filtered water. Boardman 3,405 Toledo 3,465   No Aumsville 3,750  No Coquille 3,865    No Wood Village 3,875    No Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 Veneta 4,635   No City Sizes 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031  No Warrenton 5,050 Sheridan 6,170  No Talent 6,170 Madras 6,255 Sutherlin 7,930  Yes Operate on a Mutual Agreement and Order (MAO) with DEQ. Within 3-5 years, Sutherlin will construct a new wastewater treatment facility and meet current NPDES permit. Molalla 8,200  Yes Florence 8,466  No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 125 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Eagle Point 8,575 Independence 8,585 Sweet Home 9,065   Yes South Santiam River that flows into the Willamette River Basin. Silverton 9,330   Yes Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785   Yes Meet NPDES permit requirements. In summer months, the City irrigates its golf course with Class 4 reuse water to ensure the City meets its phosphorous limits. Sandy 9,980    No City Sizes 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 Cornelius 12,161 No St. Helens 12,895  Yes Limitations on megawatts; WWTP staff perform testing to ensure the TMDL limits are not exceeded. 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 126 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? The Dalles 14,400  Yes Segment of Columbia River is water quality limited for pH. City's permit is currently under review for renewal and a new permit may restrict effluent pH to a narrower range than the historical 6.0-9.0. No treatment for pH adjustment is currently being provided. Dallas 14,800  Yes Discharge per NPDES Permit Lebanon 15,660  Yes Comply with DEQ’s NPDES permit conditions. Troutdale 16,015 Coos Bay 16,160 No Pendleton 16,600  Yes Temperature and ammonia are the TMDL limitations. Sherwood 18,771 Ashland 20,295   No Milwaukie 20,500  Yes Main stream Willamette TMDLs are in effect. Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550   Yes Excess thermal Load 39 million Kcals/day. Forest Grove 22,000 Roseburg 22,275 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 127 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Newberg 22,396  Yes TMDL plan includes treatment for mercury, temperature, TSS, CBOD, and bacteria. City Sizes 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425    Yes TBD Redmond 26,590   No Oregon City 33,390 Grants Pass 35,000  Yes TMDL Lake Oswego 36,990 Tigard 49,135 City Sizes 50,000 or more Albany 50,720  Yes TMDL for temperature, bacteria, and mercury. The City developed and is following a TMDL Implementation Plan. Springfield 59,990   No Medford 76,300  Yes Temperature trading to reduce thermal loading on the Rogue River. Bend 81,000  No Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000  Yes 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 128 City Population P ri m ar y Se co n d ar y A d va n ce d Tr e at m e n t/ Te rt ia ry N it ro ge n R e m o va l P h o sp h o ro u s R e m o va l Plants Releasing Water Under Special Regulations? (TMDL) If yes, what are they doing? Salem 157,888  Yes The TMDL and water quality limits are on the Willamette River. Don't know limits until new permit is issued; previously monitoring for temperature. Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 129 APPENDIX E: STORMWATER FEES, PRICING, AND CHARACTERISTICS Table E.1: Stormwater Fees & System Characteristics Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles City Size N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e U ti lit y f ee In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment ($) Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential (sq. ft.) <1,000 2012 2 2 0 0 1 2.75 4 4 940 1,000-4,999 2013 5 7 0 0 4 2.30 8 3 1,250 5,000-9,999 2011 2 11 0 0 0 3.50 34 14 3,207 10,000-24,999 2013 1 9 2 2 1 7.25 52 13 2,777 25,000-49,999 2014 0 5 0 0 0 7.84 123 53 2,407 50,000 or more 2012 0 4 0 0 1 8.20 257 84 2,974 All cities 2013 10 38 2 2 7 4.88 56 19 2,382 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 130 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Idanha 135 Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 Ukiah 235 Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 St. Paul 416  $0.00 0.75 1.25 0 Mosier 433 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 131 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 Echo 705 Yachats 800 >10 yrs. ago  $0.00 7 7 2,500 Malin 815 Merrill 845 Adair Village 850 2009    $2.50 6 0 2,200 Glendale 874 0 3 0 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 2014    $8.50 3.6 Falls City 950 Oakland 980 9 9 1 Donald 980  City Size 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015  $0.00 2 0 Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 132 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 Port Orford 1,135 Riddle 1,185    $0.75 1,000 Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220 2014    $1.50 Siletz 1,290 Heppner 1,290  $0.00 Dunes City 1,310  $0.00 N/A N/A N/A Bay City 1,310 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 2014  $0.00 Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 13 0 1,500 La Pine 1,670 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 2008    $5.50 4 0.4 0 John Day 1,745 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 133 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 22 N/A N/A Columbia City 1,945  Vale 1,976 >10 yrs. ago  Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Unknown Unknown Union 2,240 0 N/A N/A Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 Gervais 2,520 2013    $5.00 1 Myrtle Point 2,525 4.2 1 N/A Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 2014    $5.95 18 2 2,500 Bandon 3,100  $0.00 8 23 2,500 Nyssa 3,200 Mt. Angel 3,300  11 2.5 Unknown Boardman 3,405 $0.00 Toldeo 3,465 7 6 N/A Aumsville 3,750 6 1 Coquille 3,865 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 134 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Wood Village 3,875 2014  $9.62 3.7 0.6 N/A Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 2012    $1.50 Veneta 4,635 2014    $2.31 13.2 7.8 1,000 - 3,000 City Size 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031  $0.00 15 Warrenton 5,050 2014    10percent of sewer charge 18 20.3 2,000 Sheridan 6,170 >10 yrs. ago    3,000 Talent 6,170 2006    $3.50 Madras 6,255 >10 yrs. ago  $0.00 Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 >10 yrs. ago    $2.00 32.5 2,640 Florence 8,466 2011    $6.20 20 6 6,500 Eagle Point 8,575 2009    $5.00 24 4 3,000 Independence 8,585 2014    $8.00 Sweet Home 9,065 2006    $1.00 64 35 3,200 Silverton 9,330 2013    $1.00 26 18 3,121 Astoria 9,500 2013 80 Cottage Grove 9,785 2014    $8.52 30.9 1.6 2,650 Sandy 9,980 2009    $3.25 Unknown Unknown 2,750 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 135 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) City Size 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495  $0.00 Cornelius 12,161 2014    $12.15 19 0.34 N/A St. Helens 12,895 2013    $10.47 40.9 4 2,500 The Dalles 14,400 2007  $2.00 42.1 43.4 3,000 Dallas 14,800 42 13 N/A Lebanon 15,660 2014    $3.09 36 13 2,700 Troutdale 16,015 2014    $4.27 Coos Bay 16,160 2014   N/A 48 Unknown 2,820 Pendleton 16,600 2014   28 4 N/A Sherwood 18,771 2014  $14.27 63 Unknown 2,640 Ashland 20,295 2014  90 12 Milwaukie 20,500 2014  $14.89 40 4 2,706 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 2014  $5.25 67.2 N/A 2,750 Forest Grove 22,000 2013  $7.75 Roseburg 22,275 2014  $5.50 94.9 24 3,000 Newberg 22,396 2014  $7.30 68 16 2,877 City Size 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 2014  $5.58 180 10 2,080 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 136 City Population Last Year of Rate Change Stormwater Fees Total Miles N o c h ar ge Se p ar at e u ti lit y fe e In cl u d ed in w as te w at er r at es P ai d t o a jo in d is tr ic t w it h in t h e co u n ty O th er Avg. Monthly Household Payment Piped System Open Channel, Ditches, and Swales Avg. EDU for Residential in (sq. ft.) Redmond 26,590 2013  $7.06 34 14 Oregon City 33,390 2014  $8.80 125 40 2,500 Grants Pass 35,000 140 75 Oswego 36,990 2014  $11.76 130 2,640 Tigard 49,135 2014  $6.00 130 128 City Size 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 Springfield 59,990 2014  $13.12 170 26 1,700 Medford 76,300 2013  $7.71 172.8 50.7 3,730 Bend 81,000 2007  $4.00 3,800 Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 2014  $8.75 245 N/A 2,640 Salem 157,888 2014  $7.43 440 176 3,000 Portland 592,120 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 137 Table E.2: Stormwater Onsite Management Reductions/Credits City Size Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Does Not Offer Fee Reductions or Credits # of Responses <1,000 0 4 4 1,000-4,999 0 14 14 5,000-9,999 2 11 13 10,000-24,999 6 9 15 25,000-49,999 3 2 5 50,000 or more 3 2 5 All cities 14 42 56 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit City Size <1,000 Lonerock 34 Monument 130 Idanha 135 Detroit 205 Sumpter 205 Waterloo 230 Ukiah 235 Lexington 255 Westfir 255 Nehalem 280 Sodaville 310 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 138 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit Moro 325 Ione 330 Adams 350 Scotts Mills 364 Haines 415 St. Paul 416 No Mosier 433 Rivergrove 445 Huntington 445 Fossil 475 Gates 485 Mount Vernon 525 Cove 550 Manzanita 615 Arlington 619 Weston 675 Condon 685 Powers 695 Echo 705 Yachats 800 No Malin 815 Merrill 845 Adair Village 850 No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 139 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit Glendale 874 Prairie City 910 Halsey 917 No Falls City 950 Oakland 980 Donald 980 City Size 1,000 - 4,999 Island City 1,015 No Yamhill 1,020 Yoncalla 1,060 Joseph 1,090 Athena 1,125 Port Orford 1,135 Riddle 1,185 No Cascade Locks 1,200 Gold Hill 1,220 No Siletz 1,290 Heppner 1,290 No Dunes City 1,310 No Bay City 1,310 Rockaway Beach 1,325 Culver 1,370 Depoe Bay 1,405 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 140 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit Gearhart 1,465 Hines 1,565 La Pine 1,670 Brownsville 1,670 Lakeside 1,705 Clatskanie 1,729 No John Day 1,745 Banks 1,785 Irrigon 1,835 Columbia City 1,945 Vale 1,976 No Waldport 2,080 Rogue River 2,145 Union 2,240 Vernonia 2,450 Lakeview 2,490 Gervais 2,520 No Myrtle Point 2,525 Jacksonville 2,840 Estacada 2,880 No Bandon 3,100 No Nyssa 3,200 Mt. Angel 3,300 No 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 141 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit Boardman 3,405 Toldeo 3,465 Aumsville 3,750 Coquille 3,865 Wood Village 3,875 No Phoenix 4,585 Philomath 4,625 No Veneta 4,635 No City Size 5,000 - 9,999 Creswell 5,031 No Warrenton 5,050 No Sheridan 6,170 No Talent 6,170 No Madras 6,255 No Sutherlin 7,930 Molalla 8,200 No Florence 8,466 No Eagle Point 8,575 No Independence 8,585 No Sweet Home 9,065 Yes Any option the applicant can show that stormwater doesn't enter system. $0.20 Silverton 9,330 No Astoria 9,500 Cottage Grove 9,785 Yes Case by case basis 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 142 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit Sandy 9,980 No City Size 10,000 - 24,999 Gladstone 11,495 No Cornelius 12,161 Yes SDF Credit St. Helens 12,895 Yes Waived/Case by case basis varies The Dalles 14,400 Yes Developments that construct and operate private stormwater systems which do not now nor are ever intended to discharge to City system receive stormwater fee credits. 100 percent Dallas 14,800 Lebanon 15,660 No Troutdale 16,015 No Coos Bay 16,160 No Pendleton 16,600 No Sherwood 18,771 Yes Listed in code Varies Ashland 20,295 No Milwaukie 20,500 Yes No runoff, reduced charge $7.45 Klamath Falls 21,200 Wilsonville 21,550 No Forest Grove 22,000 No Roseburg 22,275 No Newberg 22,396 Yes Adjustment is made for sites that provide water quality/quantity facilities constructed above current design standards 10 percent to 20 percent on storm bill depending on facility design 2014 Water, Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Survey March 2015 | 143 City Population Offers Fee Reductions or Credits Nature of Reduction/Credit Amount of Reduction/Credit City Size 25,000 - 49,999 West Linn 25,425 Yes Reduction for onsite stormwater improvements TBD Redmond 26,590 No Oregon City 33,390 No Grants Pass 35,000 Oswego 36,990 Yes Self-management of storm system 50percent Tigard 49,135 Yes If a customer can show that there is no runoff from his/her property, then there is no charge to the customer No charge City Size 50,000 or more Albany 50,720 Springfield 59,990 No Medford 76,300 Yes 30percent reduction in amount charged per ERU $2.30 reduction per ERU Bend 81,000 Yes For commercial customers that contain stormwater onsite, credit is given by reduction in impervious area calculation -- must be documentable Varies Hillsboro 81,310 Beaverton 93,000 No Salem 157,888 Yes Reduction of billed impervious area from 5 to 55percent of total area 5 to 55 percent Portland 592,120