WPC Report - FINAL with signatures

Water Planning Committee
Recommendations Report
June 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
Executive Summary iv
Introduction 1
Water/Wastewater System Background 4
Current Water and Wastewater Rates 6
Phoenix Metro Area Comparisons 9
Key Factors Impacting Future Rates 11
Rate Recommendations 17
Non-Rate Fees and Charges 25
Additional Recommendation 26
Appendix
i. Alternative 1 27
ii. Public Outreach 29
iii. Citizen Comments 30
iv.Glossary of Terms 31
v. Acronyms 32
vi.Water Service Area Map 33
vii. Wastewater Service Area Map 34
List of Illustrations:
Chart 1. Goodyear Residential Winter Average Usage per Meter – 2013 6
Table 1. 2015 Water Rates 7
Table 2. 2015 Wastewater Rates 8
Chart 2. Average Residential Monthly Charges 9
Table 3. Five-Year CIP Projects and Costs 16
Table 4. Water Rate Recommendations 19
Table 5. Wastewater Rate Recommendations 20
Table 6. Rate Recommendation Impacts 21
Table 7. Alternative 2 and Uniform Water Rate Analysis 23
Table 8. Impacts of Uniform Water Rate for Commercial Customers 23
Table 9. Non-Rate Fees and Charges 25
Chart 3. Historical and Forecast Water Consumption 26
Table 10. Alternative 1 Water Rates 27
Table 11. Alternative 1 Wastewater Rates 28
Table 12. Impacts of Alternative 1 28

iii
This report includes the Water Planning Committee’s input regarding the City of
Goodyear five-year water and wastewater rate structure and other water and
wastewater initiatives. Final rate-setting authority lies with the City Council.
This report was presented to the City Council at its June 15, 2015 work session. A
copy of this report has been placed at the Goodyear Branch Library and is posted
on the Goodyear website at www.goodyearaz.gov/watercommittee. Goodyear
water and wastewater customers are invited to provide comments.
Please send written comments to:
Anna Dizack
City of Goodyear, Finance Department
190 N. Litchfield Rd.
Goodyear, AZ 85338
Email: anna.dizack@goodyearaz.gov
Comments must be received on or before noon on Friday, September 18, 2015.
The City Council may act on the rate recommendations as early as Monday,
September 28, 2015. Questions may be directed to Anna Dizack, Administrative
Services Supervisor with the City of Goodyear Finance Department at 623-882-
7896 or anna.dizack@goodyearaz.gov.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
iv
This report presents the recommendations from the Water Planning Committee
regarding the city’s five-year water and wastewater rate structure and other
water and wastewater initiatives. Final rate-setting authority lies with the City
Council.
There are currently four service providers within Goodyear city limits: the City of
Goodyear and three private utility companies. The city primarily serves those
south of Interstate-10, although it does provide water and/or wastewater service
to some customers north of Interstate-10. The city also provides service at higher
rates to a few county islands within city limits. In 2015, the city has more than 16,000
water and 15,000 wastewater accounts.
The city’s water and wastewater utilities are enterprise funds, financed solely by
their rates and fees—no General Fund or tax revenue is received. This enterprise
fund self-sufficiency is a City Council directive and a city Budget Policy. Water
and wastewater revenues must be sufficient to meet operations and
maintenance, debt service, capital requirements, and established cash reserve
or fund balance targets. While enterprise funds are financed and operated
similarly to those of a private business, the city’s utilities are designed to operate
on a breakeven basis over time, making no profit. However, weather conditions,
unexpected growth or population decline, and other factors can produce an
economic gain or loss in any year. To absorb these fluctuations in annual revenue,
the enterprise funds include un-appropriated fund balances.
The last major modification to the city’s utility rates was adopted on May 18, 2009.
This four-year water and wastewater rate plan became effective on January 4,
2010 with calendar year 2013 being the last year with a rate increase. On January
1, 2015, a 5% increase in overall water/wastewater revenues became effective
(an increase in water rates with no increase to wastewater rates). The average
residential customer would have seen about a 2.8% (or less than $2) increase to
their total water/wastewater bill. This interim increase was not intended to be
sufficient to fund all water/wastewater operating expenses in the upcoming year
but to help the enterprise funds meet the rising costs of doing business and
provide customers with a more gradual utility rate increase until a new
water/wastewater rate plan was reviewed by the Water Planning Committee
and adopted by the City Council.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
v
The Water Planning Committee was formed in October 2014 and is comprised of
residents and entity representatives in the city’s water and/or wastewater service
area. The committee met once a month from October 2014 through May 2015
(with two meetings in May) to learn about the complex water and wastewater
issues facing Goodyear and the Southwest prior to developing its
recommendations. The committee toured Goodyear water and wastewater
facilities in November 2014 and received presentations and information from staff
in a variety of division and departments, including Water Resources,
Environmental Services, Finance, Economic Development, Development
Services, and the City Manager’s Office. Presentations on the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) began in March 2015 and discussion on specific rate
alternatives took place in May 2015.
The Five-Year CIP, completed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. provided an assessment
of the city’s immediate needs for its water, wastewater, and reclaimed water
systems. A condition assessment study identified additional water and
wastewater capital projects needed to maintain the integrity of Goodyear’s
water and wastewater infrastructure. These evaluations showed that the city’s
water system has insufficient water production, pumping, and storage capacity
with significant investment needed to increase capacity in these areas and
reduce the risk of an interruption to water supply. Recommended improvements
for water projects in the Five-Year CIP plus the condition assessment projects
totaled about $39 million. Estimated costs of projects for the wastewater system
totaled about $12.5 million.
City staff and the city’s utility rate study consultants with Economists.com
forecasted additional future needs not covered by the Five-Year CIP, including
annual increases in operations and maintenance costs (insurance, gasoline,
electricity, chemicals, etc.), expected one-time and ongoing budget
supplementals, and estimates for funding line oversizing associated with
development. These needs and costs, along with costs for the Five-Year CIP and
condition assessment study, were compiled into five-year water and wastewater
rate plans by Economists.com. These rate plans were reviewed and revised by the
Water Planning Committee during the committee’s May 12 and May 19, 2015
meetings. All Water Planning Committee meetings, presentations, and
documents can be viewed on the committee’s webpage at:
www.goodyearaz.gov/watercommittee.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vi
The Water Planning Committee strategy involved three key elements: 1) secure
and optimize existing supplies and facilities, 2) identify additional water and
wastewater capital projects needed to maintain the integrity of Goodyear’s
water and wastewater infrastructure and 3) expand water use efficiency efforts.
Key decisions made by the Water Planning Committee to recommend to the City
Council include:
• Implementation all recommendations in the Five-Year CIP
• Implementation of a Central Arizona Project (CAP) water rate and inclusion
as a separate line item on customer bills
• Further examination of multi-family and commercial rate structures and
cost of service in a manner that does not change the Water Planning
Committee’s recommendations on residential rates or structures
• Adoption of a phased-in line oversizing and impact fee funding approach
as presented on May 19, 2015
• Adoption of non-rate fees and charges as presented on May 19, 2015
• Adoption of utility rates as presented and discussed with the committee in
on May 19, 2015 (Alternative 2)
• Implementation of another water citizen group to continue the efforts
made by the Water Planning Committee
The Water Planning Committee believed that these key decisions, while still
resulting in an increase to water and wastewater rates over the next five years,
presented a more palatable and balanced increase for customers than initial
estimates shown. These recommendations represent investments, not expenses,
in the city’s utility system and water future.
The typical Goodyear residential customer uses an average of 7,000 gallons of
water per month and 5,000 gallons of wastewater. Based on the Water Planning
Committee’s recommendations, the typical residential water and wastewater bill
would increase by $7.10 per month (or 9.9%) in 2016 under the proposed rates.
The increase each following year would progress from 8.7% down to 4.0%.
Commercial water and wastewater usage varies widely, based on the type of
business activity. The water and wastewater bill for a business that uses 50,000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
vii
gallons of water per month would increase by $58.52 (or 11%) in 2016 under the
proposed rates.
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Residential (7,000 gallons water, 5,000 gallons wastewater per month)
Water $ 21.63 $ 27.25 $ 32.59 $ 36.77 $ 39.65 $ 42.36
Wastewater $ 50.02 $ 51.50 $ 53.05 $ 54.10 $ 55.21 $ 56.33
TOTAL $ 71.65 $ 78.75 $ 85.64 $ 90.87 $ 94.86 $ 98.69
% Increase -- 9.9% 8.7% 6.1% 4.4% 4.0%
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Commercial (50,000 gallons water, 40,000 gallons wastewater per month)
Water $225.47 $ 274.86 $ 323.61 $ 361.07 $ 380.81 $ 398.01
Wastewater $308.78 $ 317.91 $ 327.51 $ 333.96 $ 340.84 $ 347.75
TOTAL $534.25 $ 592.77 $ 651.12 $ 695.03 $ 721.65 $ 745.76
% increase -- 11.0% 9.8% 6.7% 3.8% 3.3%
This report contains the Water Planning Committee’s recommendations and
details that the committee received during the process to gain a full
understanding of the city’s water and wastewater systems and its needs to create
a more sustainable future with this valuable resource.
Sincerely,
Mario Columbia, Chair
Jason Battern, Vice Chair

INTRODUCTION
1
City Council resolution 14-1612 established the Water Planning Committee on
April 14, 2014 for the existence of the Goodyear utility rate study project. The
committee was formed for the rate-setting process to ensure that the interests of
the city’s customers were represented. The Water Planning Committee is an ad-
hoc committee of volunteer citizens and representatives from the city’s water and
wastewater service area. Members went through an application and interview
process where they were selected by the Council Boards, Commissions, and
Committee Appointment Subcommittee.
Committee Members
Mario Columbia, Chair
Jason Battern, Vice-Chair
Jake Hinman
Peter Minarik
Dennis Paschen
Leonard Scheid
Marge Sharp
Jerry Wilson
Bill Zednik
Alternate Members
Lynne Pancrazi
Barbara Zednik
As outlined in the Water Planning Committee By-Laws, the powers and duties of
the WPC include:
A. Review and make recommendations on various master plans, including but
not limited to the City’s Integrated Water Master Plan (IWMP) update.
B. Review future water needs to support growth and development.
C. Make recommendations on water resources for growth and development.
D. Review the City’s existing utility rate structure.
E. Review and develop recommended draft utility rates to support
operations, maintenance, capital improvements, existing debt service, and
future water resource needs.
F. Recommend a draft of the water needs analysis, utility structure, and rates
to be forwarded to the City Council for review.
G. Any other actions consistent with the provisions of these By-Laws.

INTRODUCTION
2
The Water Planning Committee met nine times from October 2014 through May
2015:
Date Meeting Topic
October 14, 2014 Introduction and IWMP, rate study overviews
November 19, 2014 Water and wastewater facility tours
December 9, 2014 Staff presentations, fundamentals of utility finance
January 13, 2015 Staff presentations continued
February 10, 2015 Utility finance and ratemaking
March 10, 2015 Integrated Water Master Plan and Five-Year CIP
April 14, 2015 Integrated Water Master Plan and Five-Year CIP
May 12, 2015 Utility rate discussion
May 19, 2015 Utility rate discussion
It is important to note that the Water Planning Committee was an all-volunteer
effort. Members and alternates were selected to represent their community within
the City of Goodyear water/wastewater service area. This report should not be
considered a substitute for skilled professional analysis of the city’s operations or
capital needs. Professionals with Carollo Engineers, Inc. provided their analysis as
they presented the Five-Year CIP and experts with Economists.com gave the
committee a rate modeling analysis. Staff also provided their professional input.
This recommendations report is only one piece of the larger puzzle.
In 2014, the city hired Carollo Engineers, Inc. to complete a Five-Year CIP, one of
the first tasks of the city’s 2015 integrated water resources, water, wastewater,
and reclaimed water master plan. The Five-Year CIP provided an assessment of
the city’s immediate needs for its water, wastewater, and reclaimed water
systems. A condition assessment study was also completed to identify additional
water and wastewater capital projects needed to maintain the integrity of the
city’s water and wastewater infrastructure.
Carollo’s evaluation showed that the water system has insufficient water
production, pumping, and storage capacity with significant investment needed
to increase capacity in these areas and reduce the risk of an interruption to water
supply. The focus and direction of the city’s previous water and wastewater
services study, completed in 2009, was to assess the capacity of the system to
provide water for significantly increased volumes of people due to rapid

INTRODUCTION
3
population growth. The current Five-Year CIP proposed by Carollo gets the city
where it needs to be for the existing population and in the near term; it is not a
projected demand for the future. Although it is only for the current system, this
Five-Year CIP ensures that the city is in a good position for when significant growth
happens again.
Recommended improvements for water projects, including new or rehabilitated
wells and storage capacity, in the Five-Year CIP plus the condition assessment
projects total about $39 million. Estimated costs of projects for the wastewater
system total about $12.5 million.
Rate analyses were completed by the city’s consultants at Economists.com. An
initial rate plan was presented to the Water Planning Committee at the May 12,
2015 meeting. This rate plan, or Alternative 1 (included in the Appendix of this
report), was a scenario that assumed all major projects were funded almost
immediately and that all needs were funded fully, completely, and within a one
to two year period. After review of this Alternative 1 plan, the committee provided
consultants and staff with direction on a number of items, including the desire for
a steadier increase in the rates and phasing in components like line oversizing,
CAP water costs, and budget supplementals.
Consultants and staff returned to the Water Planning Committee with an
alternative rate plan, Alternative 2, at the May 19, 2015 meeting. This plan
incorporated the committee’s requests, including a more gradual, consistent rate
adjustment accomplished by phasing in certain expenses while still fully funding
the Five-Year CIP.
The Water Planning Committee discussed and voted on its recommendations
during the May 19, 2015 meeting, arriving at general consensus on most items.

WATER/WASTEWATER SYSTEM BACKGROUND
4
The city operates an integrated water and wastewater system to serve the area
primarily south of Interstate-10. Goodyear’s existing water/wastewater system is
valued at $280 million. Current water and wastewater related facilities include the
following:
• 12 active production wells
• 10 booster pump stations
• 10 reservoirs
• 2 arsenic treatment facilities
• 2 reverse osmosis treatment facilities
• 1.9 million feet of water pipe
• 8,814 valves
• 482 control valves
• 6,193 fire hydrants
• 1.2 million feet of sewer pipe
• More than 5,400 manholes
• 12 sewer lift stations
• 3 wastewater treatment facilities: the Goodyear Water Reclamation Facility
(WRF) (157th Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant) serving the city north of
the Gila River, and Corgett WRF and Rainbow Valley WRF serving the city
south of the Gila River.
The average annual water demand in 2013 and 2014 was 8.0 million gallons per
day (mgd). Water demands are projected to increase by 2.4 mgd by year 2020.
Currently, all of the city’s physical water supplies are from groundwater. Arizona
groundwater rules require sustainable pumping and/or groundwater
replenishment. This can be accomplished through defined pumping allowances,
annual storage and recovery of CAP or reclaimed water, use of long-term storage
credits, or the purchase of replenishment water through the Central Arizona
Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD). Currently, the city recharges
reclaimed water through its Soil Aquifer Transfer (SAT) site and also recharges CAP
water at the West Valley CAP recharge facilities. The city can then take indirect
delivery of its CAP water through the use of its recovery permits associated with
each city water production well.

WATER/WASTEWATER SYSTEM BACKGROUND
5
The combined 2013 average annual daily flow to the city’s three water
reclamation facilities (WRF) was 3.95 mgd. This means that 50% of the water
produced in the city is returned as wastewater flow to the three WRFs with the
remaining water used outdoors in landscaping. For the 2013 average annual daily
flow, approximately 0.64 mgd was conveyed to the Corgett WRF or Rainbow
Valley WRF and 3.31 mgd was conveyed to the Goodyear WRF.
It is assumed that 85% of the wastewater flow to the Goodyear WRF becomes
reclaimed water the city can use for aquifer recharge, storage, and future
recovery or reuse (though currently the city does not sell its reclaimed water from
this WRF). Under development agreements, reclaimed water generated at the
Corgett WRF is committed to development lakes and reclaimed water at the
Rainbow Valley WRF is committed to golf course irrigation. Therefore, no
reclaimed water from the Corgett or Rainbow WRFs is available for the city to
recharge.

CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES
6
The city’s current water and wastewater rates have two components: a base
charge and volume charges. Base charges are monthly charges by for service
availability and are based on water meter size. Volume charges are charged per
1,000 gallons of service.
Water volume rates are based on an inverted block—the more customers use,
the more they pay. Inverted blocks are intended to encourage conservation. Tier
structures can vary from one city or utility to the next.
The city’s current wastewater rates also have two components: a base charge
and volume charges. Base charges are monthly charges for service availability
and are based on water meter size. Volume charges are charged per 1,000
gallons of service for a winter quarter average (WQA). Winter average estimates
are necessary because, unlike water, there are no individual meters to measure
wastewater usage.
A customer’s WQA is
calculated annually by
averaging the amount of
water billed in January,
February, and March, as
these are the lowest
consumption months
(see Chart 1) and,
generally, most of the
water will be for indoor
use. WQAs are
calculated each year
and reflected beginning
on May bills. If there is
unusual water usage
during this three-month calculation period, such as a winter lawn, filling a pool,
etc., residents can appeal their WQAs. The appeal process is open from June 1
through the last business day of August. Appeal forms must be filled out annually.
Chart 1. Goodyear Residential Winter Average
Usage per Meter - 2013

7
Commercial wastewater charges are calculated each month based on the
water consumption for that billing period. The volume charge for commercial
sewer each month is based on 80% of the water consumed for that billing period.
Sedella and Canada Village residents are charged a flat rate, which will change
each May. This rate is based on the city average. Residents of these
neighborhoods can provide their January, February, and March water bills for
appeal.
Table 1. 2015 Water Rates:
BASE RATES – WATER
Meter Size (inches) 2015 Rates (monthly)
3/4 $ 11.24
1 $ 15.54
1.5 $ 25.12
2 $ 40.67
3 $ 77.67
4 $ 126.65
6 $ 240.36
8 $ 240.36
RESIDENTIAL VOLUME CHARGES – WATER
Monthly Rate Blocks 2015 Rates (per 1,000 gallons)
0 to 6,000 gallons $ 1.30
6,001 to 12,000 gallons $ 2.59
12,001 to 30,000 gallons $ 3.89
30,001 gallons and over $ 6.25
COMMERCIAL VOLUME CHARGES – WATER
0 to 40,000 gallons $ 3.30
40,001 to 100,000 gallons $ 5.28
100,001 gallons and over $ 6.86

8
IRRIGATION VOLUME CHARGES – WATER
0 to 80,000 gallons $ 4.95
80,001 and over $ 5.69
RECLAIMED VOLUME CHARGES – WATER
All $ 1.65
Table 2. 2015 Wastewater Rates:
BASE RATES – WASTEWATER
Meter Size (inches) 2015 Rates (monthly)
3/4 $ 21.12
1 $ 32.41
1.5 $ 39.94
2 $ 77.58
3 $ 115.22
4 $ 152.86
6 $ 378.70
ALL VOLUME CHARGES – WASTEWATER
All $ 5.78
Customers on the Goodyear water and/or wastewater system who are located
outside of Goodyear city limits are charged a 25% higher rate. These customers
are mainly those residing in county islands within city limits.

PHOENIX METRO AREA COMPARISONS
9
The Water Planning Committee was presented with information from city staff and
consultants with Economists.com that a number of other communities in the
Phoenix area are also currently undergoing utility rate studies or are preparing to
do so in the near future. Chart 2 below compares Goodyear’s 2015 combined
residential water and wastewater rate to its neighboring utilities, both public and
private.
Chart 2. Average Residential Monthly Charges (7,000 gal water, 5,000 gal ww)
It was presented to the Water Planning Committee that 30-40% of U.S. public
utilities do not cover costs within their enterprise funds; other funds or sales taxes
must pay for a portion of these costs. Higher costs do not necessarily mean an
enterprise system is less efficient. Although the city’s charges might be higher than
other cities there are system characteristics that significantly impact the costs
which include but are not limited to: a heavier reliance on CAP surface water
supplies versus the significantly less expensive Salt River Project (SRP) water supply,
larger impacts of water treatment requirements, and significant elevation
changes.

PHOENIX METRO AREA COMPARISONS
10
Without a cost of service analysis it cannot be determined which of the utilities, if
any, listed above subsidize their utilities with other funding sources. But it is an item
worth noting.
The city’s water and wastewater utilities are enterprise funds, financed solely by
their rates and fees—no General Fund or tax revenue is received. This enterprise
fund self-sufficiency is a City Council directive and a City of Goodyear Budget
Policy. Water and wastewater revenues must be sufficient to meet operations and
maintenance, debt service, capital requirements, and established cash reserve
or fund balance targets. This is good business practice and due to the fact that a
large number of Goodyear citizens are not serviced by the city’s
water/wastewater systems but by one of the three private utility companies
operating within the city.

KEY FACTORS IMPACTING FUTURE RATES
11
The key factors impacting Goodyear’s future water and wastewater rates, as
presented to the Water Planning Committee, include:
• Existing budget expenses
• Budget supplementals
• CAP water costs (water rates only)
• Impact fee reimbursements and line oversizing
• Capital improvements (Five-Year CIP)
Existing Budget Expenses
Existing budget expenses, or operating costs, include salaries, insurance,
electricity, utilities, building leases, equipment maintenance, gasoline, chemicals,
etc. Most operating expenses increase with inflation about 3-5% per year; certain
expenses like chemicals, electricity, and insurance, are expected to increase at
higher rates. Additionally, some expenses will increase as volumes and customers
increase.
In the future, as the number of customers increase and additional infrastructure
needs to be maintained, the city will require additional personnel to meet current
and forecasted workloads. Assumptions for these personnel and operating
expenses were forecasted using estimates for inflationary increases, as well as
staff estimates on additional full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel needed in the
future.
Capital outlays include small ticket capital items like vehicles, pumps, computers,
etc. paid for from ongoing rate revenues and not from issuing debt. Capital
outlays can also serve the purpose of funding a repair/replacement reserve
and/or a fund for oversizing lines. The city’s rate plan contains both standard
capital outlays (contained in budget) and supplemental capital outlays
(additional expenditures recommended by staff in the following budget
supplementals section).
Some budgeted expenses, such as the city’s existing debt service, remain fairly
constant, as do transfers out. Transfers out are paid to the city’s general fund to
reimburse for services provided to the enterprise funds such as human resources,
legal counsel, finance and payroll, technology maintenance, etc. Actual
numbers (not estimates) were included for these budgetary line items in the
ratemaking process.

12
Budget Supplementals
Budget supplementals are defined as anything over base budget. The city has
one-time and ongoing categories. One-time are usually project-related that
won’t be in the city’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) such as a pilot
conservation program or spare well equipment. Ongoing costs are generally
related to things like power, chemicals, etc. that staff anticipates costs increasing
over the current base budget year after year.
As ongoing and one-time supplemental requests cannot always be foreseen,
estimates were made for these in the rate plans presented to the Water Planning
Committee.
CAP Water Costs
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) is designed to bring about 1.5 million acre-feet
of Colorado River water per year to Pima, Pinal, and Maricopa counties. CAP
carries water from Lake Havasu near Parker, Arizona to the southern boundary of
the San Xavier Indian Reservation southwest of Tucson. It is a 336-mile long system
of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants, and pipelines and is the largest single
resource of renewable water supplies in the state of Arizona.
Currently, all of the city’s physical water supplies are from groundwater. Arizona
groundwater rules require sustainable pumping and/or groundwater
replenishment, which can be accomplished through defined pumping
allowances, annual storage and recovery of CAP or reclaimed water, use of long-
term storage credits, or the purchase of replenishment water through the Central
Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD).
As CAGRD water is more expensive than CAP water, the city currently purchases
CAP water for groundwater replenishment. The city can purchase CAP water but
the city cannot currently treat and deliver its CAP water directly. City CAP water
must be delivered to CAP-owned and operated recharge facilities with 20-year
permits. The city has more than 100,000 acre-feet of annual storage capacity
between five recharge facilities.
In the next ten to 15 years, the city has the opportunity to purchase CAP water to
recharge and bank as long-term storage credits for drought protection and
emergencies. As demands increase and CAP water is delivered directly to

13
customers in the future, the city’s opportunity to bank long-term storage credits is
reduced.
Currently, CAP water is paid for in the water resources budget through ongoing
supplementals each year. In calendar year 2015, the city will spend $1.2 million
for 7,228 acre-feet of CAP water. This amount is not enough to replenish the 2015
total water demands. Long-term storage credits banked by the city will need to
be used to cover the difference. Long-term storage credits are an important part
of the city’s water resources portfolio for long-term drought protection and for
emergencies. Long-term storage credits should be considered a lower priority for
use in annual water supply replenishment obligations than CAP recharge in years
when CAP water is available to the city.
Impact Fee Reimbursements and Line Oversizing
Landowners have rights to develop where and when they want to develop. A
developer may only need a certain sized line to service his property alone.
However, the line should be oversized to service other vacant land surrounding
the property that is expected to be developed in the reasonably near future. The
city prefers oversizing instead of the next developer constructing a second line
alongside the existing one to service his property, as this would require additional
maintenance and reduce efficiency.
Therefore, the city needs a way to fund the cost of oversizing lines for growth
planning. The end property can’t be held responsible for financing the oversizing
so including these costs in the budget is a means of providing cash flow to fund a
portion of the costs. The city recovers these costs when future properties are
developed. Additionally, if the other vacant properties are not reasonably
expected to develop in the near future, city staff may make a conscious decision
not to oversize as the costs would not be recovered.
Capital Improvements (Five-Year CIP)
The Five-Year CIP completed by Carollo Engineers, Inc. showed that the city’s
water system has insufficient water production, pumping, and storage capacity.
Significant investment is needed to increase capacity in these areas to reduce
the risk of an interruption to water supply, particularly in the summer months with
peak demand times.

14
The Five-Year CIP identifies that the top priority for the water system is to ensure a
water supply that:
1. Is adequate for maximum demand days with sufficient redundancy that
the water supply is not interrupted by equipment failures. This means
backup water supplies need to be available at all times so that the largest
well supply can be taken offline and the city can still supply maximum day
water demands.
2. Provides a water quality that meets water quality standards and does not
place health and safety at risk. This priority ensures adequate treatment for
water wherever the water source does not satisfy standards.
Improvements for the water system recommended in the Five-Year CIP include:
• Construct three new wells – Providing additional water supplies is an
essential part of the city’s near term strategy for delivering water to
customers. If the city’s largest system well (Well 22) is taken out of service for
some reason, Well 20 cannot be used on its own because of water quality
issues with blending requirements. This situation would result in a shortage to
the water supply. Additional wells will improve water supply reliability.
• Replacement of three wells – These wells are 55 to 75 years old (with an
expected life of 40 to 50 years) and are producing water at reduced
flowrates of a third or less of some newer wells.
• Rehabilitation of three wells – Capacity of wells often decreases with
rehabilitation and age. If one of the wells reaches the end of its useful life,
re-drilling the well in close proximity may not be an option. The three wells
Carollo has identified for rehabilitation are 17 to 27 years old and are
producing water at reduced flowrates of half or less of some newer wells.
• Pumps – The city’s pumping capacity is deficient north of the Gila River.
Solutions to the pumping capability in the near term can be addressed by
adding booster pump stations. Additional booster pumping capacity is
recommended at two sites, one north and one south of the Gila River.
• A storage reservoir – A water storage deficit currently exists and the Five-
Year CIP has recommended a 1.5 MG storage reservoir. Estimates for this
facility include both the storage and land acquisition costs.
• Replacing pipe – The Sarival Estates development located at the northwest
corner of Sarival Road and Lower Buckeye Road is experiencing main

15
failures, primarily because the development water lines were constructed
with non-standard pipe materials. This development experiences several
main breaks per year. Additionally, the quality of the pipe uncovered
during the main break repairs has deteriorated.
• Distribution Management, Operations, and Maintenance (DMOM)
program – This program assists in maintaining and managing the water
distribution system to provide desired levels of service.
Estimated costs for these water projects total approximately $39 million. Further
detail for each project can be found in the Five-Year CIP document. These
expenses would be paid for with bonds.
The wastewater collection system was evaluated primarily on asset condition. A
condition assessment study was completed to identify additional water and
wastewater capital projects needed to maintain the integrity of the city’s water
and wastewater infrastructure.
The priorities for new or rehabilitated wastewater infrastructure are:
1. Safely convey wastewater away from customers to avoid spills that expose
customers to unsanitary conditions
2. Treat wastewater to eliminate exposure to unsanitary conditions
3. Provide a reliable water resource from reclaimed water
4. Comply with regulations
Improvements for the wastewater system recommended in the Five-Year CIP
include:
• Lift Stations – Lift stations appear to have sufficient capacity to convey
current wastewater flows but the manholes where the force mains
discharge are all in poor condition due to hydrogen sulfide corrosion.
Improvements to lift stations and rehabilitation of severely corroded
manholes is included each year in the Five-Year CIP. The condition of one
lift station will require that the force main be extended so that it can
discharge into a larger interceptor (with further study required).

16
• Perryville Prison Pump Station Screen – Wastewater flows from Perryville
prison passes through a lift station that needs to handle large amounts of
cloth and other debris. An improved screen with finer openings is needed.
• Interceptor Capacity – Interceptors going into the Goodyear WRF are
undersized for the full capacity of the plant. A model is needed to evaluate
the capacity of this pipeline.
• Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) program
– Program provides the framework for effectively managing the collection
system to provide the required maintenance to keep the collection system
in good condition, to provide capacity where needed, and to avoid spills.
The estimated cost of these projects is approximately $12.5 million. Further detail
for each project can be found in the Five-Year CIP. These expenses would be
funded through current cash balances in the wastewater fund and bonds.
The Five-Year CIP project costs as presented to the Water Planning Committee is
outlined below in Table 3:
Table 3. Five-Year CIP Projects and Costs
Water Projects Estimated Cost, $M
Water supply $ 27.90
Pumping $ 1.70
Water storage $ 4.80
CAP capital (already in CIP) $ 1.40
Bullard campus treatment rehabilitation $ 0.14
Water main replacements $ 2.90
DMOM $ 0.10
Subtotal $ 38.94
Wastewater Projects Estimated Cost, $M
Rainbow Valley WRF improvements $ 1.30
Corgett WRF improvements $ 1.00
Goodyear WRF improvements $ 2.90
Lift station and force main improvements $ 2.50
Collection system improvements $ 4.80
Subtotal $ 12.50
City-identified wastewater projects $ 5.90
TOTAL FOR CIP $ 57.34

RATE RECOMMENDATIONS
17
After eight months and nine meetings, the Water Planning Committee formulated
recommendations on the city’s utility rates and rate structure. Rate analyses were
completed by the city’s consultants at Economists.com. An initial rate plan was
presented to the Water Planning Committee at the May 12, 2015 meeting. This
rate plan, or Alternative 1 (included in Appendix), was a scenario that assumed
all major projects were funded almost immediately and that all needs were
funded fully, completely, and within a one to two year period. After review of this
Alternative 1 plan, the committee provided consultants and staff with direction
on a number of items, including the desire for a steadier increase in the rates and
phasing components like line oversizing, CAP water costs, and budget
supplementals.
Consultants and staff returned to the Water Planning Committee with an
alternative rate plan, Alternative 2, at the May 19, 2015 meeting. This plan
incorporated the committee’s requests, including a more gradual, consistent rate
adjustment accomplished by phasing in certain expenses while still fully funding
the Five-Year CIP.
The committee recommends the following:
• To address the issue of insufficient water production, pumping, and storage
capacity and to reduce the risk of an interruption to water supply,
implement all of the capital recommendations identified in the Five-Year
CIP.
• To support sustainability and growth and to continue to protect Goodyear’s
water supply, implement a Central Arizona Project (CAP) rate and include
it as a separate line item on customer bills.
• To plan for growth and development, include line oversizing and impact
fees funding.
• To adopt non-rate fees and charges as presented by the city’s utility rate
study consultants.
• To support operations, maintenance, capital improvements, debt service,
and future water resource needs, adopt water and wastewater rates as
presented in the Alternative 2 plan after reconciliation with the recently
adopted fiscal year 2016 tentative budget.
These Water Planning Committee recommendations are reflected in the following
(Alternative 2) plan presented by the utility rate study consultants. Members of the

18
Water Planning Committee stated that these rates were more palatable than
what was presented with Alternative 1(included in the Appendix).
The revisions to the Key Factors Impacting Rates from the Alternative 1 to
Alternative 2 plans include:
• Existing budget expenses – Wastewater capital outlays were revised in
Alternate 2 to provide less of an impact in the first few years.
• Budget supplementals – In Alternative 1, ongoing supplementals were
estimated to increase at 5% each year from the base amount in 2015, while
one-time supplementals were held constant in 2017 forward. As requested
by the Water Planning Committee, supplementals were kept at the 2016
levels and higher amounts were phased-in throughout the five years with
Alternative 2.
• CAP water costs – The Water Planning Committee viewed CAP water as an
important source of water for the long-term sustainability and growth of
Goodyear. However, initial costs of service provided in the consultant’s
Alternative 1 plan was seen as not as palatable for customers and this rate
was revised to provide for a more gradual increase by lowering the
expense in earlier years when the percentage increase to customers’ bills
was higher. This means that the city will need to draw from its long-term
storage bank credits to fulfill recharge requirements until the CAP water
orders meet the annual total water demands in the later years of the
proposed five-year plan.
• Impact fee reimbursements and line oversizing – This expense line item was
also phased-in with the Alternative 2 plan. However, these expenses do not
reach the levels of funding in year 2020 as they were presented in
Alternative 1.
• Five-Year CIP – Planned debt service expenses for projects in the Five-Year
CIP do not begin until 2017. As the Water Planning Committee agreed that
the projects outlined in the Five-Year CIP were critical to the water
production, pumping, and storage and to reducing the risk of interruption
in Goodyear’s water supply, the Water Planning Committee supported
keeping this line item fully funded. The Water Planning Committee noted
that these projects should be seen an investment in the city’s system, not
an expense and that staff should keep a close eye on the costs as they
proceed.

19
Table 4. Water Rate Recommendations
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Base Charge – Per month (meter size)
3/4" $ 11.24 $ 12.70 $ 14.73 $ 16.35 $ 17.49 $ 18.54
1” $ 15.54 $ 17.56 $ 20.37 $ 22.61 $ 24.19 $ 25.64
1 1/2" $ 25.12 $ 28.39 $ 32.93 $ 36.55 $ 39.11 $ 41.46
2” $ 40.67 $ 45.96 $ 53.31 $ 59.17 $ 63.31 $ 67.11
CAP Water Charge – Per 1,000 gallons
-- $ 0.40 $ 0.60 $ 0.75 $ 0.85 $ 0.95
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Residential
0 to 6,000 $ 1.30 $ 1.47 $ 1.71 $ 1.90 $ 2.03 $ 2.15
6,001 to 12,000 $ 2.59 $ 2.93 $ 3.40 $ 3.77 $ 4.03 $ 4.27
12,001 to 30,000 $ 3.89 $ 4.40 $ 5.10 $ 5.66 $ 6.06 $ 6.42
30,001 and above $ 6.25 $ 7.06 $ 8.19 $ 9.09 $ 9.73 $ 10.31
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Non-Residential/School
0 to 40,000 $ 3.30 $ 3.73 $ 4.29 $ 4.72 $ 4.91 $ 5.06
40,001 to 100,000 $ 5.28 $ 5.97 $ 6.87 $ 7.56 $ 7.86 $ 8.10
100,001 and above $ 6.86 $ 7.75 $ 8.91 $ 9.80 $ 10.19 $ 10.50
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Irrigation
0 to 80,000 $ 4.95 $ 5.59 $ 6.43 $ 7.07 $ 7.35 $ 7.57
80,001 and above $ 5.69 $ 6.43 $ 7.39 $ 8.13 $ 8.46 $ 8.71
*Residential customers will also see sanitation charges on their monthly utility bills
**Current sales taxes of 8.8% and a state surcharge of 0.65% will also reflected on
customers’ bills. These are only billed on the volume of water used (not billed against
base fee or wastewater charges).

20
Table 5. Wastewater Rate Recommendations
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
3/4" $ 21.12 $ 21.75 $ 22.40 $ 22.85 $ 23.31 $ 23.78
1” $ 32.41 $ 33.38 $ 34.38 $ 35.07 $ 35.77 $ 36.49
1 1/2" $ 39.94 $ 41.14 $ 42.37 $ 43.22 $ 44.08 $ 44.96
2” $ 77.58 $ 79.91 $ 82.31 $ 83.96 $ 85.64 $ 87.35
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – All classes
All classes $ 5.78 $ 5.95 $ 6.13 $ 6.25 $ 6.38 $ 6.51
*Residential customers will also see sanitation charges on their monthly utility bills
**Current sales taxes of 8.8% and a state surcharge of 0.65% will also reflected on
customers’ bills. These are only billed on the volume of water used (not billed against
base fee or wastewater charges).
As is typical for the city, it is recommended that rate increases be adopted in the
winter months when customers’ bills are lower. Rate adjustments would be
automatic and effective on January 1 of each year between 2016 and 2020.
Impacts of Recommendations on Rates
water per month and 5,000 gallons of wastewater. Based on the Water Planning
Committee’s recommendations, the typical residential water and wastewater bill
would increase by $7.10 per month (or 9.9%) in 2016 under the proposed rates.
The increase each following year would progress from 8.7% down to 4.0%.
Commercial water and wastewater usage varies widely, based on the type of
business activity. The water and wastewater bill for a business that uses 50,000
gallons of water per month would increase by $58.52 (or 11%) in 2016 under the
proposed rates.
The following Table 6 shows the recommended rate increases carried out
throughout the five-year rate study and their associated impacts:

21
Table 6. Rate Recommendation Impacts
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Water $ 21.63 $ 27.25 $ 32.59 $ 36.77 $ 39.65 $ 42.36
Wastewater $ 50.02 $ 51.50 $ 53.05 $ 54.10 $ 55.21 $ 56.33
TOTAL $ 71.65 $ 78.75 $ 85.64 $ 90.87 $ 94.86 $ 98.69
% Increase -- 9.9% 8.7% 6.1% 4.4% 4.0%
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Water $225.47 $ 274.86 $ 323.61 $ 361.07 $ 380.81 $ 398.01
Wastewater $308.78 $ 317.91 $ 327.51 $ 333.96 $ 340.84 $ 347.75
TOTAL $534.25 $ 592.77 $ 651.12 $ 695.03 $ 721.65 $ 745.76
% increase -- 11.0% 9.8% 6.7% 3.8% 3.3%

22
Uniform Non-Residential Rate
Due to time constraints, complexity, and need for further analysis, the Water
Planning Committee voted to direct city staff to analyze and examine multi-family
and commercial rate structures and cost of service and report to the City Council
in a manner that does not change committee recommendations on residential
rates or rate structures. This vote took place in regards to a non-residential/
commercial uniform block rate structure presented by consultants on May 19,
2015 as a further option to address questions about alternative multi-family rates.
The Water Planning Committee By-Laws allowed for up to 25% of members to be
non-residents of the city if they met one of the following criteria:
• Own and operate, or represent a corporate entity that owns and operates,
a business located within the city water and/or sewer service area
• Own property with the city water and/or sewer service area
• Represent a public entity that operates with the city water and/or sewer
service area
One member of the committee, a consultant with the Arizona Multihousing
Association (AMA), served as a representative for apartment complexes within
the city. Participation on the Water Planning Committee was a suggestion by staff
after a meeting on multi-family water rates in 2014. This member expressed
concerns throughout the Water Planning Committee process on the equity
between single-family residential and multi-family residential water and
wastewater rates. Currently, multi-family properties are on included under the
commercial rate structure.
At the May 19, 2015 meeting, in addition to the Alternative 2 proposal, the Water
Planning Committee was presented with a rate plan to potentially further alter
multi-family and commercial water rates. This plan included revising non-
residential/commercial water rates from the current tiered rate structure to a
uniform rate structure for all non-residential usage. Alternative 2 proposed rates
are shown in comparison to the uniform charge plan in the following Table 7:

23
Table 7. Alternative 2 and Uniform Water Rate Analysis
Current Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Non-Residential/School (Alternative 2)
0 to 40,000 $ 3.30 $ 3.73 $ 4.29 $ 4.72 $ 4.91 $ 5.06
40,001 to 100,000 $ 5.28 $ 5.97 $ 6.87 $ 7.56 $ 7.86 $ 8.10
100,001 and above $ 6.86 $ 7.75 $ 8.91 $ 9.80 $ 10.19 $ 10.50
Uniform Charge per 1,000 gallons – Non-Residential/School
All usage -- $ 6.20 $ 7.13 $ 7.84 $ 8.15 $ 8.39
A uniform water rate in lieu of a tiered non-residential/commercial rate would
have different impacts to different businesses. Table 8 shows an analysis of how
commercial customers would be impacted, with the “Difference” rows illustrating
the difference between what these customers would pay under the
recommended Alternative 2 structure and what they might pay under the
uniform rate structure previously outlined.
Comparisons below show the differences in water rates only (as wastewater rates
would not be altered in the uniform rate option):
Table 8. Impacts of Uniform Water Rate for Commercial Customers
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
50,000 gallon customer – Impacts to monthly charges
Tiered rate (Alt. 2) $ 225.47 $ 274.86 $ 323.61 $ 361.07 $ 380.81 $ 398.01
Uniform rate -- $ 375.96 $ 439.81 $ 488.67 $ 513.31 $ 534.11
DIFFERENCE -- $ 101.10 $ 116.20 $ 127.60 $ 132.50 $ 136.10
Tiered rate (Alt. 2) $ 1,518.47 $ 1,815.86 $ 2,123.61 $ 2,359.07 $ 2,472.31 $ 2,568.01
Uniform rate -- $ 1,695.96 $ 1,985.81 $ 2,206.67 $ 2,313.31 $ 2,402.11
DIFFERENCE -- $ (119.90) $ (137.80) $ (152.40) $ (159.00) $ (165.90)
Tiered rate (Alt. 2) $ 3,233.47 $ 3,763.36 $ 4,366.11 $ 4,827.82 $ 5,041.06 $ 5,216.76
Uniform rate -- $ 3,255,96 $ 3,783.31 $ 4,185.42 $ 4,372.06 $ 4,523.36
DIFFERENCE -- $ (507.04) $ (582.80) $ (642.40) $ (669.00) $ (693.40)

24
Discussion was held on the uniform rate analysis at the May 19, 2015 Water
Planning Committee meeting. However, many on the committee felt that they
did not know enough about a separate or different multi-family rate to make an
informed decision on the topic. Additionally, some members didn’t agree with
the uniform commercial rate plan.
Thus, the direction recommended by the Water Planning Committee was for staff
to work with the consultants to analyze multi-family and commercial rates and
cost of service. This information should be reported to the City Council. There was
strong agreement from a majority of the committee that altering the non-
residential/commercial water rate structure should not impact residential rates or
rate structures.

NON-RATE FEES AND CHARGES
25
Non-rate revenues are one-time charges for specific services provided to
individual ratepayers. These include but are not limited to: connection fees, meter
tests, disconnect notices, special meter reads, meter tampering fines, etc. The
fees are generally based on the cost the utility incurs in providing service though
some, such as late payment penalties, are intended to provide a disincentive.
Cost of each service is composed of labor, materials, vehicle usage, and
other/miscellaneous costs.
The city’s non-rate fees and charges were last updated in 2007.
To address cost recovery, several increases to charges are being proposed to
recover direct and indirect costs of service. These specific service costs are
assessed to users of the service so that the general rate payers do not bear the
burden.
After consideration of the plans and information from city staff and consultants,
the Water Planning Committee recommended the city’s non-rate fees and
charges be adopted as proposed:
Table 9. Non-Rate Fees and Charges
Non-Rate Fees and Charges Current Fee Recommended Fee
Late Payment Fee 1.50% 1.50%
Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) Fee $35 $50
Security Deposit – Residential $200 $200
Security Deposit – Non-Residential $250 $650
Cross Connection – Backflow $9 $9
Same Day New Account Activation
Fee (in addition to Next Day New
Account Activation Fee)
$50 $50
Next Day New Account Activation $50 $60
Disconnect Notice – Water $18 $18
Admin Fee (Shut-Off) $50 $50
Same Day Reinstatement $50 $50
Water Audit Fee
(if cancelled less than 24 hours prior)
$54 $75
Field Visit $55 $85
Hydrant Connection $100 $150
Meter Tampering $65 $100

ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION
26
Sustainability and water conservation were important topics for the Water
Planning Committee. The committee presented ideas and suggestions on these
topics ranging from implementing new programs and initiatives to revising city
policies and employing fines or limitations.
While the Water Planning Committee discussed many sustainability and
conservation ideas, with limited time and the large task at hand of deciding on
future water and wastewater rates, the committee was not able to discuss most
of these ideas in-depth. Many on the committee felt that some of these ideas
were valid and should be passed on for staff to evaluate and the City Council to
review. However, the majority of the Water Planning Committee was not
comfortable voting on these items at the May 19, 2015 meeting.
The Water Planning Committee voted to recommend directing staff to consider
implementation of another water citizen group to continue the efforts made by
the Water Planning Committee on the issues of sustainability and conservation.
Chart 3. Historical and Forecast Water Consumption

APPENDIX
27
Alternative 1
An initial rate plan was presented to the Water Planning Committee at the May
12, 2015 meeting. This rate plan, or Alternative 1, was a scenario that assumed all
major projects were funded almost immediately and that all needs were funded
fully, completely, and within a one to two year period. After review of this
Alternative 1 plan, the committee provided consultants and staff with direction
on a number of items, including the desire for a steadier increase in the rates and
phasing components like line oversizing, CAP water costs, and budget
supplementals. Alternative 1 as presented to the Water Planning Committee at
the May 12, 2015 meeting is presented in the following Tables 10-12.
Table 10. Alternative 1 Water Rates
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
3/4" $ 11.24 $ 15.74 $ 17.71 $ 18.06 $ 18.42 $ 18.79
1” $ 15.54 $ 21.76 $ 24.48 $ 24.97 $ 25.47 $ 25.98
1 1/2" $ 25.12 $ 35.17 $ 39.57 $ 40.36 $ 41.17 $ 41.99
2” $ 40.67 $ 56.94 $ 64.06 $ 65.34 $ 66.65 $ 67.98
CAP Water Charge – Per 1,000 gallons
-- $ 0.80 $ 0.90 $ 0.95 $ 1.00 $ 1.10
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Residential
0 to 6,000 $ 1.30 $ 1.82 $ 2.05 $ 2.09 $ 2.13 $ 2.17
6,001 to 12,000 $ 2.59 $ 3.63 $ 4.08 $ 4.16 $ 4.24 $ 4.32
12,001 to 30,000 $ 3.89 $ 5.45 $ 6.13 $ 6.25 $ 6.38 $ 6.51
30,001 and above $ 6.25 $ 8.75 $ 9.84 $ 10.04 $ 10.24 $ 10.44
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Non-Residential/School
0 to 40,000 $ 3.30 $ 4.62 $ 5.20 $ 5.30 $ 5.41 $ 5.52
40,001 to 100,000 $ 5.28 $ 7.39 $ 8.31 $ 8.48 $ 8.65 $ 8.82
100,001 and above $ 6.86 $ 9.60 $ 10.80 $ 11.02 $ 11.24 $ 11.46
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – Irrigation
0 to 80,000 $ 4.95 $ 6.93 $ 7.80 $ 7.96 $ 8.12 $ 8.28
80,001 and above $ 5.69 $ 7.97 $ 8.97 $ 9.15 $ 9.33 $ 9.52

APPENDIX
28
Table 11. Alternative 1 Wastewater Rates
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
3/4" $ 21.12 $ 22.60 $ 24.18 $ 25.87 $ 26.39 $ 26.92
1” $ 32.41 $ 34.68 $ 37.11 $ 39.71 $ 40.50 $ 41.31
1 1/2" $ 39.94 $ 42.74 $ 45.73 $ 48.93 $ 49.91 $ 50.91
2” $ 77.58 $ 83.01 $ 88.82 $ 95.04 $ 96.94 $ 98.88
Volume Charge per 1,000 gallons – All classes
All classes $ 5.78 $ 6.18 $ 6.61 $ 7.07 $ 7.21 $ 7.35
Impacts of Alternative 1
water per month and 5,000 gallons of wastewater. Commercial water and
wastewater usage varies widely, based on the type of business activity. The water
and wastewater bill for a business that uses 50,000 gallons of water per month is
outlined in Table 12 below. Table 12 shows the impacts of Alternative 1 reviewed
by the Water Planning Committee on May 12, 2015:
Table 12. Impacts of Alternative 1
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Water $ 21.63 $ 35.89 $ 40.39 $ 41.41 $ 42.44 $ 43.83
Wastewater $ 50.02 $ 53.50 $ 57.23 $ 61.22 $ 62.44 $ 63.67
TOTAL $ 71.65 $ 89.39 $ 97.62 $ 102.63 $ 104.88 $ 107.50
% Increase -- 24.8% 9.2% 5.1% 2.2% 2.5%
Current
Effective
Jan 2016
Effective
Jan 2017
Effective
Jan 2018
Effective
Jan 2019
Effective
Jan 2020
Water $225.47 $ 355.64 $ 400.16 $ 409.64 $ 419.55 $ 431.98
Wastewater $308.78 $ 330.21 $ 353.22 $ 377.84 $ 385.34 $ 392.88
TOTAL $534.25 $ 685.85 $ 753.38 $ 787.48 $ 804.89 $ 824.86
% increase -- 28.4% 9.8% 4.5% 2.2% 2.5%

APPENDIX
30
Citizen Comments
Three members of the public spoke or provided comments during the Water
Planning Committee meetings. These comments are summarized below:
• December 9, 2014 – Jeff Gibbs, a Litchfield Park resident, spoke on a water
consciousness initiative proposition to organize a team to participate in the
Arizona Water Consciousness Challenge. Gibbs asked the Water Planning
Committee to provide him with an agreement to work with his group in the
development of their solution or an agreement to conduct one or more
pilots.
o Staff follow-up, January 13, 2015 WPC meeting – City Water
Resources Manager Mark Holmes informed the Water Planning
Committee that the city had decided to partner with the Arizona
Water Association on this challenge as its mission and objectives fit
with the city. Other Arizona cities also joined in the challenge with this
association.
• February 10, 2015 – Nancy McFillin, a resident of Goodyear’s Estrella
community, spoke regarding reclaimed water in the development, the
Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD), and asked
why Estrella is the only community in Goodyear that uses reclaimed water.
o Staff follow-up, March 6, 2015 prior to WPC meeting – City staff
provided a response as part of an ongoing list for follow-up items. This
document is posted to the Water Planning Committee’s webpage at
www.goodyearaz.gov/watercommittee and the response is listed as
Item #1.
• May 12, 2015 – Clodina Correa, representing Desert Sage Apartments,
submitted written comments read aloud by the Committee Chair. Correa
asked that the committee take into consideration changing the multi-
family rates from commercial to residential as they have been having issues
retaining residents at Desert Sage Apartments.

APPENDIX
31
Glossary of Terms
Acre-Feet – The volume of one acre of surface area at a depth of one foot (43,560
cubic feet) or 325,851 gallons of water. This is enough water to serve 2.3 to 3
average residents within the City of Goodyear for one year.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) – A characteristic of sewage that can make
it more expensive to process at the wastewater treatment plant.
Brackish Water – Water containing between 1,000 mg/l and 15,000 mg/l of
dissolved solids
Brine – Another term for concentrate
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – A long-range study or plan of defined
capital expenditures/projects.
Concentrate – Water that is rejected in the process of reverse osmosis which
contains dissolved solids in the water being processed in more concentrated form
Fiscal Year – The annual budget period. For the City of Goodyear, the fiscal year
starts July 1 and ends the following June 30.
Permeate – Water from which most of the dissolved solids have been removed by
the reverse osmosis process
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) – A characteristic of sewage that can make it more
expensive to process at the wastewater treatment plant.
Winter Quarter Average (WQA) – The method for calculating sewer volumes for
residential accounts. Three months of winter water usage (January, February, and
March) are averaged to set a baseline volume for domestic service. That
calculated volume is used for billing purposes for the remainder of the calendar
year beginning on the May bill.

APPENDIX
32
Acronyms
ACC Arizona Corporation Commission
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
BAT Best Available Technology
BWC Bullard Water Campus
CAGRD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District
CAP Central Arizona Project
CIP Capital Improvement Program
DAWS Designation of Assured Water Supplies
IPR Indirect Potable Reuse
IWMP Integrated Water Master Plan
HOA Homeowner’s Association
MGD Million Gallons per Day
PPM Parts Per Million
RID Roosevelt Irrigation District
RO Reverse Osmosis
SAT site Soil Aquifer Treatment site
SRP Salt River Project
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TSS Total Suspended Solids
URS Utility Rate Study
WPC Water Planning Committee
WQA Winter Quarter Average

APPENDIX
33
WATER SERVICE AREA MAP

APPENDIX
34
WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA MAP

WPC Report - FINAL with signatures

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to WPC Report - FINAL with signatures (20)

WPC Report - FINAL with signatures