HomeMy WebLinkAbout6 Water Rate Study Agenda Item # 6
RUCKEE DONNER
Public Utility District
ACTION
To: Board of Directors
From: Neil Kaufman
Date: April 15, 2009
Subject: Consideration of the Award of a Contract to Perform the Water Rate
Study
1. WHY THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE BOARD
Board action is required for expenditures in excess of$15,000.
2. HISTORY
AB 2572 requires that the District begin reading the water meters installed since 1992 and
commence billing on a volumetric basis by January 1, 2010. AB 2572 also requires that all
connections be equipped with water meters and billed on a volumetric basis by January 1, 2025.
Another facet of compliance with AB 2572 involves the development a new volume-based water rate
structure. The District issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to assist the
District in developing the new rate structure. The deadline for submittal of proposals was March
20, 2009. In addition, at the March 18 meeting, the Board appointed Director Bender to serve
on the review committee tasked with evaluating the proposals.
3. NEW INFORMATION
Seven proposals were received in response to the RFP. Firms that submitted proposals are:
• Bartle Wells
• Carollo Engineering
• Eco-Logic
• FCS
• HDR
• MF Whipple
• Municipal Financial Services (MFS)
The review committee of four members met on as March 26. The proposals were reviewed and
evaluated based on the following criteria:
• Project Approach
• Experience and Qualifications of the Firm
• Experience and Qualifications of the Project Team
A short list of three firms (Eco-Logic, HDR & MFS) was developed and interviews were
conducted on April 2 and April 6. Based upon the technical proposals and interviews, HDR was
ranked highest, ahead of MFS, with Eco-Logic ranked third.
HDR is a large consulting engineering firm and is working with a number of utilities that are
transitioning from flat-rate billing to metered rates. HDR also has experience with small resort-
type communities including Tahoe City PUD and Squaw Valley PSD.
The cost proposals from the three short-listed firms were then reviewed. The overall costs
ranged from $37,400 to $47,780. However, closer review indicated that main difference
involved the treatment of expenses such as travel and reproduction. The costs are summarized
below.
Firm Total Labor Total Labor Other Expenses Total Cost
Hours Costs
Eco-Logic 297 $39,390 $1,140 $40,530
HDR 304 $40,970 $7,810 $48,870
MFS 340 $37,400 Included in Labor $37,400
The conclusion from the cost review is that labor effort to be expended is about the same
among all three firms, with MFS anticipating slightly more labor hours. Overall, the costs are not
considered significantly different. The lower cost quoted by MFS serves to narrow the
difference in scoring between HDR and MFS, leaving HDR slightly ahead of MFS. Therefore, it
is recommended that the contract be awarded to HDR.
4. FISCAL IMPACT
HDR has quoted a cost of$48,870 to perform the Water Rate Study. The funding source for the
Water Rate Study is the Reserve for Future Meters fund.
5. RECOMMENDATION:
1) Award a contract to perform a Water Rate Study to HDR in an amount not to exceed $48,870.
2) Authorize the transfer of $48,870 from the Reserve for Future Meters Fund to the Water
Department Gene I Fund to cover the cost of the contract.
r
Ed Taylor Michael D. Holley
Water Utility Manager General Manager