HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - EVWD Board of Directors - 03/25/2015
REGULAR BOARD MEETING / PUBLIC HEARING
March 25, 2015 – 5:30 P.M.
31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, CA
AGENDA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
“In order to comply with legal requirements for posting of agenda, only those items filed
with the District Secretary by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday prior to the following Wednesday
meeting not requiring departmental investigation, will be considered by the Board of
Directors”.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS
PRESENTATIONS & CEREMONIAL ITEMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person wishing to speak to the Board of Directors is asked to complete a Speaker Card
and submit it to the District Clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Each speaker is
limited to three (3) minutes, unless waived by the Chairman of the Board. Under the
State of California Brown Act, the Board of Directors is prohibited from discussing or
taking action on any item not listed on the posted agenda. The matter will automatically
be referred to staff for an appropriate response or action and may appear on the agenda
at a future meeting.
AGENDA - This agenda contains a brief general description of each item to be considered.
Except as otherwise provided by law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing
on the following agenda unless the Board of Directors makes a determination that an
emergency exists or that a need to take immediate action on the item came to the
attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda.
1. Approval of Agenda
2. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Board of
Directors to be routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no
discussion of these items prior to the time the Board considers the motion unless
members of the Board, the General Manager, or the public request specific items to
be discussed.
a) Approve the February 25, 2015 regular board meeting minutes
b) Approve the March 11, 2015 regular board meeting minutes
3. Proposed budget based rate structure presentation
Open Public Hearing
4. Public comments
Close Public Hearing
5. Board discussion
6. Adopt Resolution 2015.04 - Establishing a schedule of rates and charges for water
service
REPORTS
7. Board of Directors Reports
8. General Manager/CEO
9. Legal Counsel Report
10. Board of Directors Comments
ADJOURN
PLEASE NOTE:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet
are available for public inspection in the District’s office located at 31111 Greenspot Road, Highland, during
normal business hours. Also, such documents are available on the District’s website at www.eastvalley.org
subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2(a), any request for a disability-related modification or
accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, that is sought in order to participate in the above-
agendized public meeting should be directed to the District’s District Clerk at (909) 885-4900 at least 72
hours prior to said meeting.
Minutes: 02/25/15 etb
Subject to approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT February 25, 2015
BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. Ms. Jody Scott led
the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Coleman, Morales
ABSENT: Director: Shelton
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial
Officer; Tom Holliman, Engineering and Operations Manager; Justine
Hendricksen, District Clerk; Eileen Bateman, Senior Administrative
Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER REGARDING AGENDA
ITEMS
• INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY HIRED EMPLOYEES
The General Manager/CEO introduced the District’s new employees to the Board.
• Brandon Lopez, Field Service Representative
• Jessica Reed, Customer Service Representative (Temp)
• Jennifer Wallace, Customer Service Representative (Temp)
• Alex Larios-Rivas, Meter Reader
PRESENTATIONS & CEREMONIAL ITEMS
The General Manager/CEO requested that the presentation from Southern California
Edison be re-scheduled as representatives were unable to attend.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:32
pm.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
Minutes: 02/25/15 etb 2
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Morales requested that Closed Session Item #10 – Public Employee
Performance Evaluation be removed from the agenda as there are no updates at this
time.
M/S/C (Coats-Carrillo) that the February 25, 2015 agenda be approved as
amended.
APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 10, 2015 SPECIAL BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Coats-Coleman) that the February 10, 2015 special meeting minutes be
approved as submitted.
APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 11, 2015 REGULAR BOARD MEETING MINUTES
M/S/C (Coats-Coleman) that February 11, 2015 regular board meeting minutes be
approved as submitted.
ADOPT RESOLUTION 2015.03 – A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A BOND REIMBURSEMENT
DATE OF FEBRUARY 25, 2015
M/S/C (Coleman-Coats) that the Board adopt Resolution 2015.03.
ADOPT EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT’S 2015 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
Ms. Malloy, Public Affairs/Conservation Manager reviewed the proposed Legislative
Platform which included information regarding the District’s service area, disadvantaged
community status, future water and sewer service potential, development activity,
water resources, recycled water, water rates, roles and responsibilities of the District
and the legislative and regulatory platform.
Chairman Morales stated that this Legislative Platform is a critical component for the
District’s ability to pursue funding opportunities.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Coats) that the Board adopt East Valley Water District’s 2015
Legislative Platform.
REVIEW AND APPROVE FY 2014-15 MID-YEAR BUDGET UPDATE
The General Manager/CEO provided a detailed summary of the District’s Mid-Year
Budget Review including: financial summary of revenues and expenditures, year to date
accomplishments and performance measures, operational summary, capital expenses
and ongoing goals and objectives, the District’s reserves to date and transfer of funds to
cover the mid-year adjustments.
The Board discussed the District’s capital projects, expenditures and revenues.
Minutes: 02/25/15 etb 3
Chairman Morales opened the meeting for public comments.
Ms. Jody Scott inquired about the comparison period of the operational summary,
revenue summary, future projects of the District, Proposition 218 notices and the
Legislative Platform information as it pertains to the mid-year budget review.
Chairman Morales addressed the public’s comments. He thanked staff on behalf of the
Board for the mid-year report, and stated that he is very comfortable with the amount
of reserves held and moving forward with capital projects in a prudent fiscal approach.
The General Manager/CEO commended staff on their efforts and the information that
was provided.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Coats) that the Board approve the FY 2014-15 mid-year budget
update.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Coleman reported on the following: he attended the San Bernardino Area
Chamber of Commerce Koffee Klatch meeting on February 18th and discussed the
District’s budget based rates, water conservation and how to decrease water usage. He
suggested changing out sprinkler heads to reduce the amount of water required for
landscaping. He also attended the Highland City Council meeting on February 24th where
they discussed the sewer-line located in City Creek, timeline for repairs and the City’s
obligation to be involved with the District.
Director Carrillo had no reports at this time.
Vice Chairman Coats reported on the following: he attended Valley District’s meeting on
February 17th, the topics discussed were the Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan updates and plan approval, that the District is one of
16 agencies that provides input on the report, the plan balances flood water
management and storm water recharge in the basin, tax dollars, and security
enhancements to prevent theft to facilities including the hydroelectric turnouts for East
Valley Water District’s Plant 134.
Chairman Morales reported on the following: he attended the East Valley Association of
Realtors monthly meeting and reported that they were excited to have the injection of
the East Valley Water District and our water information as part of their strategic
operations and programs. They will be utilizing our facility to showcase water
efficiencies and regional partnerships; he also met with the Chairman and General
Manager of Cucamonga Valley Water District along with Mr. Mura to discuss regional
water issues, ACWA Region 9 and the possibility of future collaboration.
Chairman Morales asked Director Coleman about the conversation he had on February
18th with the City of San Bernardino and some misinformation that was given during that
meeting and the subsequent meeting Mr. Coleman had with the General Manager and the
Minutes: 02/25/15 etb 4
CFO to get some clarity on his misinformation. He also stated that Mr. Coleman’s report
did not include that he attended the meeting on the 25th to correct his misstatements.
Director Coleman apologized for not including this in his report, he stated that he went
back this morning, February 25th and made mention that he had been in error on some of
the information he provided, and gave the people the information they requested, some
of them were East Valley Water District customers and he explained to them that the
District was going to have a meeting on March 25th and that they should be getting the
information in the mail shortly.
Chairman Morales stated that unfortunately this was not the information that he was
provided today by those who were in attendance. He indicated to Mr. Coleman that
they will have to figure things out moving forward.
Information only.
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORTS
The General Manager/CEO provided information regarding his presentation to the
Northeast Sterling Neighborhood Association, staff meeting to discuss the revisions to
the District’s strategic planning process, including the District’s Mission Statement and
Goals & Objectives for the coming year; that the Emergency Response Network of the
Inland Empire (ERNIE) will be hosting an Emergency Operation Center (EOC) training
session for Policy makers on Wednesday, April 1, 2015, the training will be held at the
District and will cover roles that elected officials have in making decisions on the
operations of the organization, how they coordinate with the EOC and local officials
during an emergency event; staff is also attending section specific training for the EOC
hosted by ERNIE; that we are working towards the goal of having all District employees
trained in emergency preparedness, staff from Administration, Customer Service, Field
and Production attended an ICS, SEMS, NIMS overview workshop through the CA-NV
Section of AWWA. He stated that he will be going to Sacramento this Friday to meet with
the State Water Resources Control Board to discuss SRF funding for the Recycled Water
Center and that the ACWA’s Legislative Symposium will be held next week in Sacramento
on March 3-4.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No reports at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMENTS
Director Carrillo thanked the General Manager/CEO for his report and that he will be in
attendance at the ACWA Legislative Symposium on behalf of the Board.
Director Coleman stated that at the San Bernardino Chamber of Commerce get together
they provided information on the Habitat for Humanity program and that they discussed
water conservation that is being implemented for more water efficient homes in the
future. He also stated that he is glad to have the education tonight and to have received
Minutes: 02/25/15 etb 5
the extra information to help with the workflow and system efficiency and capable of
meeting the needs of the community.
Chairman Morales asked each Board Member if they had received the information
package for the General Manager/CEO’s evaluation review including the time
requirements to comply with the contract obligations. He thanked the public for their
attendance this evening.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
_________________________
James Morales, Jr., Chairman
____________________
John J. Mura, Secretary
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb
Subject to approval
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT March 11, 2015
BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
The Chairman of the Board called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Vice Chairman
Coats led the flag salute.
PRESENT: Directors: Carrillo, Coats, Coleman, Morales, Shelton
ABSENT: None
STAFF: John Mura, General Manager/CEO; Brian Tompkins, Chief Financial
Officer; Tom Holliman, Engineering and Operations Manager; Justine
Hendricksen, District Clerk; Eileen Bateman, Senior Administrative
Assistant
LEGAL COUNSEL: Jean Cihigoyenetche
GUEST(s): Members of the public
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER REGARDING AGENDA
ITEMS
No supplemental information at this time.
PRESENTATIONS & CEREMONIAL ITEMS
• Check presentation from Amy Olson (Southern California Edison) for Energy
Efficiency Pumping Savings
Ms. Olson provided a brief efficiency savings overview to date, and thanked the Board
for recognizing staff’s efforts with the pumping projects and increasing efficiency.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Morales declared the public participation section of the meeting open at 5:36
pm.
There being no written or verbal comments, the public participation section was closed.
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb 2
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairman Morales requested that Closed Session Item #11 – Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, be removed from the agenda as there are no updates at this
time.
M/S/C (Coats-Coleman) that the March 11, 2015 agenda be approved as amended.
RESOLUTION 2015.02 – A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE
WALMART EXPANSION PROJECT
M/S/C (Coleman-Shelton) that the Board approve Resolution 2015.02.
DISBURSEMENTS
M/S/C (Coleman-Shelton) that the General Fund Disbursements #243205 through
#243927 which were distributed during the period of January 1, 2015 through February
28, 2015 in the amount of $6,259,551 and payroll and benefit contributions in the
amount of $840,170, totaling $7,099,721 be approved.
APPROVE THE DIRECTORS’ FEES AND EXPENSES FOR JANUARY & FEBRUARY 2015
M/S/C (Coleman-Shelton) that the Directors’ fees and expenses for January &
February 2015 be approved as submitted.
ACCEPT FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE UPDATED RECYCLED WATER FEASIBILITY STUDY
The General Manager/CEO stated that there have been recent opportunities to improve
the Recycled Water Center Project, and RMC will provide an overview of their findings.
Mr. Morrow, a representative from RMC provided a presentation regarding opportunities
for the Recycled Water Center Project. The findings include a new location for the water
reclamation plant on Del Rosa Avenue. Moving the location to the Del Rosa site will
provide additional community benefits including a learning center near schools,
capturing more flow by gravity, and reducing energy requirements. He provided a cost
comparison of both sites (Sterling and Del Rosa) and stated the recycled water from the
proposed facility could be used for groundwater recharge and habitat conservation in
City Creek for the Santa Ana Sucker, as well as water supply reliability.
M/S/C (Carrillo-Coats) that the Board accept the findings presented by RMC and
include them in the revised Recycled Water Feasibility Study.
RECEIVE AND FILE THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE EAST VALLEY RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT REPORT
Mr. John Husing of Economics & Politics, Inc. provided a detailed report regarding the
Recycled Water Center and the impacts to the community including costs reductions to
District residents, groundwater sustainability, increased local economy, employment
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb 3
during construction, and the need for water reclamation and recharge due to the threats
to economic activity in the areas served by the Bunker Hill Basin. He also provided a cost
comparison of current and future costs associated with the recycled water.
The General Manager/CEO stated that it is important for the District to consider the
information that was provided by Mr. Husing. He thanked Mr. Husing for doing such a
great job of laying out the benefits of the Recycled Water Center.
Director Carrillo stated that this was a fantastic presentation and appreciates having the
information available regarding the positive economic impact that this project will have
on the community.
Director Shelton indicated that the numbers and the facts were amazing and enjoyed
hearing facts presented and appreciates the work that was put into the presentation by
Mr. Husing.
Director Coleman stated that he appreciates the way this presentation was laid out and
how easy it was to understand.
Vice Chairman Coats thanked Mr. Husing for his presentation and stated that he is
pleased that someone is excited as the District is regarding the Recycled Water Center
and the positive impacts this project will have on the community.
Chairman Morales stated that the District strives to be a leader in our region; that with
this project the District will have self-sustainability and the benefit of becoming a
regional economic multiplier catalyst.
Mr. Husing stated that it was a pleasure working with John Mura, Kelly Malloy and Ashok
Dhingra and thanked staff for their assistance.
The General Manager/CEO stated that this project along with the benefits in creating
jobs validates all the hard work we have been doing the past six months.
Information only.
RECEIVE AND FILE THE RESULTS FROM THE 2015 COMMUNITY SURVEY CONDUCTED BY
PROBOLSKY RESEARCH
Mr. Justin Wallen, Probolsky Research, reviewed the community survey that was
conducted including general water issues and themes, recycled water and the Recycled
Water Center; 78.8% approve of the job that East Valley Water District has been doing,
75% have concern of water supply availability, 90% support major investments that
would modernize and upgrade our infrastructure, 75.8% are in support of the recycling
center. He stated that the results of the survey identify how customers would prefer to
receive information regarding the District which is consistent with the current public
outreach efforts.
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb 4
Director Coleman stated that he was glad that the District is on the positive side of
customer expectations.
Director Shelton stated that it was an amazing presentation and that surveys give her a
new perspective and their value.
Director Carrillo thanked Mr. Wallen and District staff for their efforts in completing the
presentation.
Vice Chairman Coats stated that the survey revealed that staff is doing the right thing
for our customers and that we have the right people in the proper positions throughout
the District.
Information only.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Coleman reported on the following: February 25th he attended the San
Bernardino Chamber After Hours and spoke with a number of chamber members; March
3-5 he attended the ACWA Legislative Symposium and found it fascinating. He also had
the opportunity to meet with State Legislators and was glad for the opportunity to
attend the event as it was a worthwhile program.
Director Shelton had no reports at this time.
Director Carrillo reported on the following: he attended the East Valley Realtors
Association and one of the items discussed was providing support for the District’s
Recycled Water Center.
Vice Chairman Coats reported on the following: February 26th he attended the Upper
Santa Ana Water Resources Association meeting where they discussed meeting schedules
and information regarding water conservation and impacts to Federal and State laws as
they pertain to budget based rates; he also met with Senator Morrell in Sacramento
during the Legislative reception on March 3rd-4th; March 11th he attended the Upper
Santa Ana Water Resources Water Association that was hosted by East Valley Water
District and the San Bernardino Water Conservation District which reviewed the state of
the Basin and its history.
Chairman Morales reported on the following: he attended the ACWA Legislative
Symposium and reception, met with Senator Morrell and discussed the effects of
Proposition 218 to water agencies and possible changes to Proposition 218. In addition,
he was in Sacramento and met with various delegates including Senator Morrell,
Assemblymember Steinorth, Assemblymember Brown, the Governor’s office, deputy
legislatives affairs secretary, Jennifer West, former Legislative Director of the Water
Reuse of Southern California to update them on projects with the District; he also
attended the Upper Santa Ana Water Resources Association meeting.
Information only.
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb 5
GENERAL MANAGER/CEO REPORTS
The General Manager/CEO provided information regarding his visit to Sacramento along
with Director Carrillo and Chairman Morales, and had an opportunity to meet with Dan
Newton, Head of the California EPA who is in charge of approvals with SRF funding for
projects that are completed by 2017; Mr. Newton is also working on setting parameters
for Proposition 1B for grant money to improve water resources. East Valley Water
District is being considered as a pilot project for the roll out of policies and funding
distribution. He also stated newspaper articles are reporting that water agencies
throughout California are raising rates up to 30%. He will be presenting at the San
Bernardino Valley Advisory Commission the results from tonight’s presentation and will
be seeking support for the Recycled Water Center. There is a North Fork meeting
scheduled for March 13th at 10:30 am and on March 18th there will be a Special Board
meeting to request authorization from LAFCO for the Recycled Water Center, he
encourages the community to get involved with the LAFCO process.
LEGAL COUNSEL REPORT
No reports at this time.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMENTS
Director Coleman clarified the time for the LAFCO meeting on March 18th; he stated
that tonight was one of the most interesting meetings that he has attended and looks
forward to being a part of the solution for the water problem.
Director Shelton thanked the Board for her excused absence and stated that she is
excited about all of the important things that the District is involved in and is thrilled to
be a part of this organization.
Director Carrillo stated that he was happy to have Director Shelton back and stated that
he appreciated the opportunity to share the legislative platform in Sacramento and was
very impressed with staff’s preparation and professionalism.
The General Manager/CEO reported that he was invited to Big Horn Country Club for a
legislative briefing with Mr. John Boehner, Speaker of the House; and that it was a great
opportunity to discuss a number of water issues in California.
Chairman Morales stated that Mr. Husing’s presentation will be available on the website
and if there are any questions, to please contact the District Clerk.
The Board took a break at 7:20 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
The Board entered into Closed Session at 7:28 p.m. as provided in the Ralph M. Brown
Act Government Code Sections 54956.9(d)(1) and 54957 to discuss the items listed on the
agenda.
Minutes: 03/11/15 etb 6
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
The Board returned to open session at 7:54 p.m. The items listed on the agenda were
discussed in closed session with the following action being taken:
With respect to item #10 - No reportable action taken.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 7:54 p.m.
_________________________
James Morales, Jr., Chairman
____________________
John J. Mura, Secretary
East Valley Water District
Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Budget Based Rate Structure
2014 Drought Update
100% of California is experiencing some form of drought.
2010 Conservation Requirements
•SBx7‐7
•Each water agency must reduce water use 20% by 2020
•Baseline established in 2010
•Updated in 2015
•AB 1420
•Outlines minimum conservation programs to be made
available to customers
•Impacts ability to qualify for State grants and loans
Water Rate Structure Evolution
Uniform Rate:
Pros: Administrative ease, easy to understand
Cons: Does not incentivize efficient users,
does not assign lowest cost to essential
use
Price
Information
East Valley Water District
$1.77 / hcf
Water Rate Structure Evolution
Inclining Tiered Rate:
Pros: Promotes conservation, affordable for
essential use, easy to administer, easy to
understand
Cons: Penalize large users;
Assumes large usage = wasteful usage
Price
Information
Behavior
Change
Water Rate Structure Evolution
Water Budget Tiered Rate:
Pros: Promote water efficiency, equitable,
affordable for essential use, drought
allocation tool, provides revenue stability
Cons: High administrative costs,
complicated process resulting in
decreased ease of understanding
Price
Information
Behavior
Change
Water
Resource
Management
Comparing Water Rate Structures
Uniform Tiered
Water
Budget
Revenue Stability
Simple to Understand, Administer
and Update
Promotes Conservation
Affordable for Essential Use
Equity
Customize rankings based on District’s current rates and results
from pricing objectives
What Is Included in Our Rate?
•Two components: fixed and variable
–Fixed revenue (monthly charge)
–Variable revenue (charged based on usage)
•Current Revenue Split – 25% / 75%
–75% of revenue is collected from water
usage
•Promotes conservation, but is not in‐line
with how costs are incurred
•Increased potential for revenue shortfalls
as a result of effective conservation
Proposed Fixed / Variable Split
•Primary goal –Promote conservation
while providing reliable services
•Proposed adjustment – 40% / 60%
–More in‐line with how costs are incurred
–Continues to promote efficient use of water
–Achieves objective of revenue stability
–Minimizes rate spikes as conservation is
achieved
Fixed Charge Schedule
Meter Size Current Charge
Meter
Capacity
Ratio FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
5/8"13.71$ 1.00 20.96$ 23.06$ 24.67$
3/4"13.71$ 1.50 26.61$ 29.27$ 31.32$
1"20.87$ 2.50 37.92$ 41.71$ 44.63$
1 1/2"38.60$ 5.00 66.19$ 72.81$ 77.91$
2"88.48$ 8.00 100.12$ 110.13$ 117.84$
3"163.25$ 17.50 207.54$ 228.30$ 244.28$
4"270.06$ 31.50 365.85$ 402.44$ 430.61$
6"537.09$ 65.00 744.67$ 819.14$ 876.48$
8"857.52$ 120.00 1,366.62$ 1,503.28$ 1,608.51$
June 1, 2015 July 1, 2016 July 1, 2017
Proposed Budget‐Based Tiers
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Tier 2 Tier 3
P1
P2
P3
Quantity
Tier 1
Indoor
Water
Budget
Inefficient
Use
(Over Budget)
Rates
Tier 1: Indoor Water Budget
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Indoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
Indoor Water
Budget
“IWB”
Size
Household Size –
No. of Residents
GPCD
Gallons per capita
per day
Days
Days of Service
V indoor
Indoor Variance
Determining Tier 1 Allotment
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
•“Indoor Water Budget”
•Each person is allotted 60 gallons per capita
per day (GPCD)
•Multiplied by household size
•Multiplied by number of dwelling units
•Multiplied by days of service in the month
•Adjust with drought factor, if needed
Example Tier 1: Indoor Water Budget
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
1. Household size –4 occupants
2. Gallons per capita per day –60
3. Number of dwelling units‐1
4. Number of days in billing period –30
5. Drought Factor ‐1
6. Calculation:
4 x 60 x 1 x 30 x 1 = 7,200 gallons
Convert to HCF –
7,200 ÷ 748 = 10HCF
Tier 2: Outdoor Water Budgets
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
Outdoor
Water Budget
“OWB”
ET0
Weather Data
ETAF
ET Adjustment
Factors
LA
Landscape Area
DFout
Outdoor Drought
Factor
V outdoor
Outdoor Variance
Determining Tier 2 Allotment
•“Outdoor Water Budget”
•Evapotranspiration (ET0)
•Varies by month due to weather (required
water to maintain landscaping)
•Multiply by Evapotranspiration Adjustment
Factor
•Multiplied by Landscape Area (Square Feet)
•Based on aerial image in May 2014
•Can adjust allotment with outdoor drought
factor, if necessary
Tier 2: Outdoor Water Budgets
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
GIS Data will
be used to
determine
each parcel’s
irrigable area.
Irrigable Landscape
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
•Infra‐red aerial photography taken
in April 2014
•Similar to Google Earth
•Measured areas with
photosynthesis
•Identified swimming pools
•Information from the San Bernardino County Assessor
•Square footage of buildings
•Parcel boundaries
•Determined each parcel’s irrigable
landscape
•If inaccurate, can be modified by staff
Weather Station Readings
•California Irrigation Management Information
System (CIMIS)
•Region specific weather readings
0
2
4
6
8
10
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2014 Evapotranspiration Rate
ETo ETAF
Example Tier 2: Outdoor Water Budget
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
1. Irrigable Landscape Area – 4,000 sq. ft.
2. Monthly Weather Data (July ET0) –8.63 inches
3. ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) –.94
4. Outdoor Drought Factor ‐1
5. Outdoor Variance ‐None
6. Factor to convert sq. ft. to gallons –.62
7. Calculation:
[4,000 x (8.63 x .94 x 1)] x .62 = 20,118 gallons
Convert to HCF 20,118 ÷ 748 = 27 HCF
Example Annual Budget by Month
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
Ex: SFR with 4,000 sq. ft. of irrigable area
Note: All units are in HCF, or one hundred cubic feet of water. One HCF is 748 gallons.
Outdoor budget assumes turf land cover and no reduction for drought
27
>37
23
Residential Allotments
•Residential Tier 1 Allotment
•Based on number of occupants
•Residential Tier 2 Allotment
•Based on irrigable landscape
•Residential Tier 3 Use
•All use beyond Tier 1 and 2 allotment
Non‐Residential Allotments
•Dedicated Irrigation Meters
–Indoor demand does not exist
•Tier 1 allotment = N/A
•Non‐Residential Customers
–SBx7‐7 legislation points to a savings in Non‐
Residential of 10% from the baseline
–Tier 1 = 90% of historical water usage
–Can adjust with drought factor
Variable Charges
Tiers June 1, 2015 July 1, 2016 July 1, 2017
Tier 1 $1.45 $1.63 $1.83
Tier 2 $2.07 $2.32 $2.61
Tier 3 $2.89 $3.24 $3.64
Current Structure Current Rate (All Metered Water)
Uniform Rate $1.77
Variance Policies
Outdoor
Water
Budget
Excessive
Use
(Over Budget)
Examples of Variances
•District staff evaluates and approves
exceptions on a case‐by‐case basis
Current Indoor Conservation Rebates
High Efficiency Washing Machine
Rebate: Up to $150
Estimated Savings: 16 gallons per load
High Efficiency Showerhead
Rebate: Up to $30 each
Estimated Savings: 30 gallons/ shower
High Efficiency Toilet
Rebate: Up to $100 each
Estimated Savings: 19 gallons/ person per day
Current Outdoor Conservation Rebates
Smart Controller
Rebate: Up to $150 each
Estimated Savings:
13,500 gallons per year
Water Efficient Landscape
Rebate: Up to $200
Estimated Savings: 200‐1,000 gallons per year
High Efficiency Nozzles
Rebate: Up to $4 each
Estimated Savings: 20,000 gallons/year replacing 25
Comprehensive Efficiency Rebate Programs
•Tier 3 revenue to fund enhanced conservation programs
•Current rebate programs will remain in place
•Complete Project Partnership from Start to Finish
–Professional landscape evaluation and survey
•Certified Landscape and Water Efficiency
Professionals
•Comprehensive landscaping review
•Wide variety of efficiency recommendations
•Larger scale
programs
•Estimated
savings:
Reduce
water use by
up to 2/3
•Landscape redesign services and
financial assistance
•Landscaping replacement and
financial assistance
•Irrigation renovation/replacement
program
Community Engagement
• Community Workshop• Community WorkshopJan 21, 2015
• Authorize Public Hearing• Authorize Public HearingJan 28. 2015
•Notices sent to all property owners
• Conduct additional community meetings
•Notices sent to all property owners
• Conduct additional community meetingsFeb 2015
• Public Hearing‐March 25
•Board Action
• Public Hearing‐March 25
•Board ActionMarch 2015
•If adopted by the Board
• Shadow bills sent to customers
•If adopted by the Board
• Shadow bills sent to customersApr/May 2015
•If adopted by the Board
•Proposed rates take effect
•If adopted by the Board
•Proposed rates take effectJune 2015
Questions
1 Resolution 2015.04
RESOLUTION 2015.04
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF RATES AND CHARGES FOR WATER SERVICE
AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2014.32
WHEREAS, East Valley Water District (“District”) is a county water district
organized and operating pursuant to California Water Code Section 30000 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code
Sections 31024 and 31027, the District’s Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 390
on December 10, 2014, establishing the rules and regulations for water service by the
District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to applicable law, including but not limited to Water Code
Sections 31007 and 31025, the District’s Board of Directors is authorized to adopt by
resolution such rates for the provision of water service by the District to implement
the rules and regulations set forth in Ordinance No. 390 and to yield an amount
sufficient to pay the operating expenses of the District, provide for repairs and
depreciation of works owned or operated by the District, pay the interest on any
bonded debt, and, so far as possible, provide a fund for the payment of the principal
of the bonded debt as it becomes due; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 390 provides that Rates and Charges, may be changed
from time to time or new rates and charges may be established by resolution of the
Board of Directors; and
WHEREAS, Section 21080(b) (8) of the Public Resources Code provides that the
establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring or approval of rates, tolls,
fares, or other charges by public agencies are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provided that certain findings are made
specifying the basis for the claim of exemption; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, limiting
local agencies’ appropriations of proceeds of taxes, excludes user charges or fees or
regulatory fees from the definition of proceeds of taxes, as long as such fees and
charges do not produce revenue exceeding the costs reasonably borne in providing the
regulation, product or service, and further excludes appropriations for debt service
and appropriations for qualified capital outlay projects from appropriations subject to
limitation; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District deems it advisable and finds
that it would be in the best interest of the District to amend or establish certain rates
and charges, consistent with applicable constitutional and statutory requirements;
and
2 Resolution 2015.04
WHEREAS, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California provides
that, in imposing or increasing any property-related fee or charge (which term was
held by the California Supreme Court in July, 2006, in the case Bighorn-Desert View
Water Agency vs. Virjil, to include charges for water delivery), an agency shall
provide written notice by mail of the proposed fee or charge to the record owner of
each identified parcel upon which the fee or charge is proposed for imposition, the
amount basis of calculating, and reason for such proposed fee or charge, and the
date, time, and location of a public hearing on the proposed fee or charge to be
conducted not less than 45 days after the mailing of said notice, and Government
Code Section 53755 provides for such notice to be given by mailing to the address
where billing statements are customarily sent by the District; and
WHEREAS, said mailed notice was given, setting Wednesday, March 25, 2015, at
the hour of 5:30 p.m. of said day in the Board of Directors Room of the District, 31111
Greenspot Road, Highland, California, as the time and place for a public hearing on
the proposed increases in water rates and charges and any proposed new property-
related rates and charges set forth in Exhibit “A” to this resolution; and
WHEREAS, at the time set, the duly noticed public hearing was held and all
persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard concerning the increases in
property-related rates and charges and any proposed new property-related rates and
charges; and
WHEREAS, this Board of Directors has considered all protests presented to the
District by owners of identified parcels against the proposed increases in property-
related rates and charges and any proposed new property-related rates and charges;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the District as
follows:
Section 1. It is hereby found and determined that the number of written
protests presented to the District against the proposed increases in property-related
rates and charges and any proposed new property-related rates and charges has been
tabulated and does not constitute a majority of the number of owners of identified
parcels.
Section 2. It is hereby found and determined that the proposed changes to the
Schedule of Rates and Charges are within the purposes set forth in Section 21080(b) of
the Public Resources Code including but not by way of limitation, the purposes of (1)
meeting operating expenses, (2) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or
materials, (3) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and (4) obtaining
funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing areas, and
therefore, that such changes are exempt from CEQA.
Section 3. It is hereby found and determined that the rates and charges of the
District are imposed on the basis of demand as determined by measurements
including water metering and meter size, acreage or other demand-generation
3 Resolution 2015.04
characteristics of properties requesting connection, and cost of service restoration,
inspection and other services provided for all fees; that such rates, charges and fees
are imposed upon the request for or use of services; and that the water user charges
satisfy the criteria and requirements of Water Code Section 370 et seq. relating to
allocation-based conservation water pricing.
Section 4. It is hereby found and determined that relative to Article XIIIB of
the Constitution of the State of California, the user charges and fees and regulatory
fees established or increased hereby do not produce revenues exceeding the costs
reasonably borne in providing the regulation, product or service and/or are used for
debt service or qualified capital outlay projects and accordingly do not constitute
proceeds of taxes, the appropriation of which is limited under Article XIIIB, and that
the documentation used in making such determinations has been on file in the office
of the District for not less than 10 days prior to the days prior to the date hereof,
pursuant to Section 7910 of the Government Code of the State of California.
Section 5. The new and/or revised rate(s), fee(s) and/or charge(s) as set forth
in Exhibit “A” attached to this resolution and by this reference incorporated herein
are hereby adopted in conformity with the authority set forth in Section 14.01 of
Ordinance 390, and the corresponding rate(s), fee(s) or charges(s), if any, as set forth
in Ordinance 390 currently in effect, are hereby superseded and Resolution 2014.32 is
hereby rescinded. Staff is directed to incorporate the hereby adopted new and/or
revised rate(s), fee(s) and/or charge(s) into Exhibit “A” attached hereto.
Section 6. That the provisions of this Resolution shall be effective June 1,
2015.
Section 7. That the Secretary is hereby ordered and directed to post a
certified copy of this Resolution in a public place within the District.
4 Resolution 2015.04
This Resolution shall take effect as of the 1st day of June 2015.
Adopted this 25th day of March 2015.
ROLL CALL:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
James Morales, Jr., Chairman of the Board
ATTEST: _____________________________
John J. Mura, Secretary
EXHIBIT “A”
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
SCHEDULE O F WATER RATES AND CHARGES
EFFECTIVE JUNE 1, 2015
i
Table of Contents
Section 1: Water Service Charges ..................................................................... 1
Monthly Water System Charge ............................................................. 1
Commodity Charges: Potable Water ...................................................... 1
MWD Surcharge ................................................................................ 2
Private Fire Protection Service ............................................................ 3
1. Standby Charge ........................................................................... 3
2. Fire Flow Testing ......................................................................... 3
Temporary Water Service Connection .................................................... 4
Monthly Service Charge ...................................................................... 4
1. Commodity Charge ...................................................................... 4
2. Meter Deposit ............................................................................. 4
3. Unauthorized use of Water Charge .................................................... 4
New Account Fees for Water Services .................................................... 5
1. Initiation of Service Fee ................................................................ 5
2. Security Deposit .......................................................................... 5
Miscellaneous Water Service Charges ..................................................... 6
Section 2: Developer Services ......................................................................... 7
Water Connection Fees ...................................................................... 7
Fire Service Connection Charges .......................................................... 8
Developer Services Charges ................................................................ 9
1. Front Footage Charge ................................................................... 9
2. Water Main Extension Charge .......................................................... 9
3. Fire Hydrant Installation Charge ....................................................... 9
4. Special Facility Charge .................................................................. 9
5. Inspection Charge ........................................................................ 9
6. Water System Design Charge ........................................................... 9
7. Engineering Service Charges ......................................................... 10
8. Interim Water Service – New Development ........................................ 10
9. Valve Deposit ........................................................................... 10
1
Section 1: Water Service Charges
Monthly Water System Charge
The water system charge is the monthly availability charge applicable to all
metered water services, and shall apply whether or not premises served by the meter
are occupied The charges, which vary by meter size, are established at the amounts
listed in the table below.
Commodity Charges: Potable Water
Commodity Charges are billed on a per unit basis for water consumption
registered by the water service meter. One unit is 100 cubic feet (hcf) of water,
which is equal to 748 gallons.
Tiers
Effective
6/1/2015
Effective
7/1/2016
Effective
7/1/2017
Tier 1 - Indoor Use 1.45 1.63 1.83
Tier 2 - Outdoor Use 2.07 2.32 2.61
Tier 3 - Inefficient Use 2.89 3.24 3.64
Meter Size
Effective
6/1/2015
Effective
7/1/2016
Effective
7/1/2017
5/8" 20.96 $ 23.06 $ 24.67 $
3/4" 26.61 $ 29.27 $ 31.32 $
1" 37.92 $ 41.71 $ 44.63 $
1 1/2" 66.19 $ 72.81 $ 77.91 $
2" 100.12 $ 110.13 $ 117.84 $
3" 207.54 $ 228.30 $ 244.28 $
4" 365.85 $ 402.44 $ 430.61 $
6" 744.67 $ 819.14 $ 876.48 $
8" 1,366.62 $ 1,503.28 $ 1,608.51 $
2
MWD Surcharge
The MWD surcharge rate (per hundred cubic feet) for all customer types is as follows
Effective 6/1/2015
Rate per HCF $0.00
The MWD Surcharge Rate represents increased costs associated with water
imported from the State Water Project. The charge to the District for State Water
Project imported water is established by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water
District.
Since the District has no control over the adoption or imposition of MWD water
charges, imposed through San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District for the
delivery of imported water to the District, EVWD may pass-through, for a five year
period beginning June 1, 2015 any increases in the cost of MWD imported water
imposed by the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.
3
Private Fire Protection Service
1. Standby Charge
The fire service standby charge is the monthly charge assessed per inch
diameter of the District fire service meter. Water use through this service is
limited to emergency fire requirements only.
Meter Size
Effective
6/1/2015
Effective
7/1/2016
Effective
7/1/2017
Effective
7/1/2018
Effective
7/1/2019
1"7.99$ 8.78$ 9.40$ 9.68$ 9.97$
1 1/2"11.98$ 13.18$ 14.10$ 14.52$ 14.96$
2"15.97$ 17.57$ 18.80$ 19.36$ 19.94$
3"23.96$ 26.35$ 28.20$ 29.04$ 29.91$
4"31.94$ 35.14$ 37.59$ 38.72$ 39.88$
6"47.91$ 52.70$ 56.39$ 58.08$ 59.83$
8"63.88$ 70.27$ 75.19$ 77.45$ 79.77$
10"79.85$ 87.84$ 93.99$ 96.81$ 99.71$
2. Fire Flow Testing
The fire flow test charge is a flat rate established to cover the District’s time
and effort for testing parts of the water system to obtain fire flow test data and
calculate results as requested. The District will charge a one-time fee of $100.00
to administer fire flow tests.
4
Temporary Water Service Connection
A temporary service is available through the use of a fire hydrant. A customer
deposit for the temporary service will be required, and all other applicable service
charges shall apply.
Monthly Service Charge
Refer to the schedule of Monthly Water System Charges for three inch (3”) meters.
1. Commodity Charge
Commodity charges for temporary services shall be billed at the Tier 3 rates
based on the Potable Water Commodity Rates. When available, and feasible, C
recycled water shall be used for temporary construction uses.
The Commodity Charge shall be as follows:
Area Rate/100 Cubic Foot
Potable Tier 3 Rate
Recycled TBD
2. Meter Deposit
A deposit equal to the replacement cost of the construction meter shall be
collected at the time of service application. Currently, the replacement cost is
estimated to be $1,800.00. The deposit will be applied to the closing bill and any
remaining amount refunded to the customer. Lost meters will result in forfeiture
of the deposit.
3. Unauthorized use of Water Charge
The unauthorized use of water charge shall be charged to any person,
organization or agency for each unauthorized use of District water or for
tampering in any manner with any meter belonging to the District where this
tampering shall affect the accuracy of such meter. The unauthorized use of water
charge is hereby established at the rate of $500.00 for a first occurrence and
$1,000.00 for each subsequent occurrence.
5
New Account Fees for Water Services
The following fees are applicable to all requests for new service, or transfer of
an existing account to a new location:
1. Initiation of Service Fee
This fee is established at $25 per account.
2. Security Deposit
A deposit of $100 will be required until a one year payment history, with
fewer than two delinquencies, has been established.
6
Miscellaneous Water Service Charges
Delinquency Charge 1.5%Assessed monthly on the total
amount delinquent
Returned Payment Charge 20.00$ Check returned by bank unpaid
or charge back on credit card
Disconnect Notice Charge 20.00$ Notifies customer of impending
service termination
Disconnect / Reconnect Fee 45.00$
After Hours Fee 25.00$
Meter Test Charge 50.00$
7
Section 2: Developer Services
Water Connection Fees
The water service connection charge is the charge for the type and size of water
service connection desired. Such regular charge shall be paid in advance by the
applicant. Where there is no regular charge, the District reserves the right to require
the applicant to deposit an amount equal to the estimated cost of such service
connection.
Service
Size
Capacity Charge
(Harmony)
Capacity Charge
(Non-Harmony)
Installation
Charge
3/4" $ 5,200.00 $ 4,607.00 $ 2,128.00
1" $ 8,684.00 $ 7,694.00 $ 2,160.00
1 1/2" $ 17,316.00 $ 15,343.00 $ 4,714.00
2" $ 27,714.00 $ 24,556.00 $ 4,924.00
3" $ 51,997.00 $ 46,072.00 $ 10,739.00
4" $ 86,741.00 $ 76,858.00 $ 16,551.00
6" $ 173,165.00 $ 153,434.00 $ 27,117.00
8" $ 311,983.00 $ 276,434.00 $ 29,983.00
10" $ 519,971.00 $ 460,723.00 To be determined
8
Fire Service Connection Charges
The fire service charge is the charge for the type and size of fire service
connection desired. Such regular charge shall be paid in advance by the applicant.
Where there is no regular charge, the District reserves the right to require the
applicant to deposit an amount equal to the estimated cost of such service
connection.
Fire Service
Size
Installation
Charge
1"2,160.00$
1 1/2"4,717.00$
2"4,924.00$
3"10,739.00$
4"13,873.00$
6"19,186.00$
8"20,211.00$
* = DDC = Double Detector Check
9
Developer Services Charges
1. Front Footage Charge
The front footage charge is a one-time reimbursement to the District for
previously constructed water mains adjacent to all sides of an unimproved
property to be serviced. This charge is hereby established at a rate of $30.00 per
lineal foot.
2. Water Main Extension Charge
The water main extension charge is for the construction of a water main
extending to the far side of the property to be served. This charge shall be based
on the prevailing rates of time and material per District approved plans. The
customer shall be responsible to provide the plans and for all applicable
Engineering Services charges described below.
3. Fire Hydrant Installation Charge
The charge for installation of fire hydrants is hereby established at the rate of:
• $3,807.00 for each short side installation (the case where the water main and
the hydrant are on the same side of the street’s centerline);
• $6,359.00 for each long side installation (the case where the water main and
the hydrant are on the opposite sides of the street’s centerline).
4. Special Facility Charge
A special facility charge shall be required for development of limited service
whenever special facilities, including pressure regulators are required. The charge
to be made to a developer or owner of land that is considered by the District to be
within a limited service area shall be based upon the developer’s or landowner’s
proportionate share of the cost for the installation of such Special Facility. Such
proportionate share to be borne by the developer or landowner shall be based on
the percentage of such development to the entire limited service area to be
served by the Special Facilities; and the same number of acres or area under
normal conditions and the cost of facilities to serve the acreage of area under
special conditions at a higher cost.
5. Inspection Charge
Where a customer service connection or facility requires inspection by
District personnel, the customer shall be charged for such inspection at the rate of
$600.00 per day.
6. Water System Design Charge
A water system design charge shall be required for all main extensions,
10
service connections and/or special facilities requiring the preparation of
engineering plans and drawings. The water system design charge is hereby
established as that fee charged by an engineering firm of the District’s choosing,
plus an additional 10% thereof for the District’s administrative costs. In the event
the costs exceed the fees charged, the additional cost will be billed to the
customer.
7. Engineering Service Charges
The Engineering Services charge is a fee for the District’s time and effort
spent on assisting customers who have a requirement to construct water main
extensions, or other water facilities, that must meet District needs and conform to
District standards. This fee includes time and effort the District spends on plan
checking, plan and easement development, and all other related work.
Prior to submission of any documents requiring work by the District, a non-
refundable minimum charge in the amount of 7.5% of the engineer’s estimated
cost for the project shall be submitted to the District. The work will be
accomplished on a time and effort basis. Should the District require more funds
than the original charge, the additional costs will be billed and must be paid prior
to allowing water service to the project.
8. Interim Water Service – New Development
A monthly flat charge of $44.00 will be assessed during construction. The flat
charge is only available for service 1” in diameter or smaller.
9. Valve Deposit
A refundable deposit of $100.00 per valve will be charged for each water
system valve on the water construction plans. This fee will be returned when the
valve cans and caps are constructed to final grade by the developer’s contractor
and verified by the District.
As an alternative to the valve deposit, a guarantee bond may be provided in
the same amount as the deposit. The guarantee bond may be provided in the
same amount as the deposit. The guarantee bond shall contain covenants that are
satisfactory to the District. Such bond shall remain in force until all valve cans
and caps are constructed to final grade by the developer’s contractor and verified
by the District.
24640 Jefferson Ave
Suite 207
Murrieta,CA 92562
Phone 951.698.0985 www.raftelis.com
Water Cost of Service & Rate Study Report 20 15
Comprehensive Water Cost of
Service & Rate Study
Draft Report / January 28, 2015
EAST VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT
24640 Jefferson Ave
Suite 207
Murrieta,CA 92562
Phone 951.698.0985 www.raftelis.com
Water Cost of Service & Rate Study Report 20 15
January 15, 2015
Mr.Brian Tompkins
Chief Financial Officer
East Valley Water District
31111 Greenspot Road
Highland, CA 92346
Subject:Water Budget-Based Rate Cost of Service Study ReportDear Mr.Tompkins,Raftelis Financial Consultants , Inc. (RFC) is pleased to provide this Budget-Based Water Rate Cost ofServiceStudy Report (Report) for East Valley Water District (District) to address financial needs ofthe District and to establish utility rates that provide sufficient revenue over a three-year planningperiodandare equitable through the use of Budget-Based rates;consistent with direction providedto us from District staff and the District Board.The major objectives of the study include the following:
1.Develop financial plans for the water utility to ensure financial sufficiency, meet operationand maintenance (O&M) costs, ensure sufficient funding for capital replacement andrefurbishment (R&R) needs,build up reserves over the three years and maintain the strongfinancial health of the enterprise
2.Perform cost-of-service analyses for the water utility based on recent historical usage
3.Promote conservation through a rate structure that encourages the efficient use of water
4.Develop a water budget based rate structure for the water utility, and
5.Develop fair and equitable water rates
The Report summarizes the key findings and recommendations related to the development of thefinancial plan and the development of rates the for water enterprise.It has been a pleasure working with you, and we thank you and the District staff for the supportprovided during the course of this study.Sincerely,
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Habib Isaac Gregg Tobler Kevin KostiukManagerSenior Consultant Consultant
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY .................................................................................1
1.2 WATER UTILITY ..........................................................................................................1
2 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE STUDY................................................1
2.1 INFLATION ..................................................................................................................1
2.2 GROWTH AND DEMAND FACTORS ..............................................................................1
3 WATER SYSTEM -FINANCIAL PLAN.................................................1
3.1 FINANCIAL PLAN .........................................................................................................1
3.1.1 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................1
3.1.1.1 REVENUES FROM CURRENT RATES .....................................................................1
3.1.1.2 O&M EXPENSES ....................................................................................................1
3.1.1.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN............................................................................2
3.1.1.4 RESERVE REQUIREMENTS ...................................................................................3
3.1.1.5 FINANCIAL PRO FORMA AT CURRENT RATES......................................................3
3.1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN .........................................4
3.1.2.1 PROPOSED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS ..................................................................4
3.1.2.2 PROPOSED FINANCIAL PLAN ...............................................................................4
3.1.2.3 PROPOSED FINANCIAL OUTLOOK ........................................................................5
4 WATER SYSTEM -COST OF SERVICE AND RATE DESIGN ............7
4.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND RATE METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND ..............................7
4.2 PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE –WATER BUDGET .....................................................14
4.3 WATER BUDGET DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................14
4.4 PROPOSED RATES ......................................................................................................19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Water Accounts by Meter Size...............................................................................2
Table 1-2: Monthly Base (Fixed Charges)..............................................................................2
Table 1-2: Volumetric Rate (Commodity Charge)..................................................................2
Table 2-1: Inflation Factor Assumptions ................................................................................1
Table 2-2: Inflation Factor Assumptions ................................................................................1
Table 3-1: Projected Water Revenues at Current FY 2014-15 Rates.....................................1
Table 3-2: Projected Water O&M Expenses............................................................................2
Table 3-3: Capital Improvement Expenditures .......................................................................2
Table 3-4: Financial Plan Pro-forma at Current Rates ...........................................................4
Table 3-5: Five-Year Water Enterprise Proposed Financial Plan -Pro-forma ......................5
Table 4-1: Revenue Requirements by Function –FYE 2016 through FYE 2024 ................14
Table 4-2: Detailed Revenue Requirements by Function .....................................................12
Table 4-3: Detailed Revenue Requirements by Function .....................................................17
Table 4-4: Detailed Revenue Requirements by Function .....................................................18
Table 4-5: Projected Water Consumption (by tier)................................................................19
Table 4-6: Fixed Charge Calculation –5/8” or 3/4” Meter.....................................................20
Table 4-7: Proposed Five Year Monthly Service Charges (FY 2015-FY 2020)....................20
Table 4-8: Fixed Charge Calculation –Fire Lines .................................................................21
Table 4-9: Proposed Five Year Monthly Private Fire Line Service Charges........................21
Table 4-10: Variable Cost Components .................................................................................26
Table 4-11: Unit Cost of Water Supplies by Source..............................................................22
Table 4-12: Allocation of Tier Demand Costs........................................................................24
Table 4-13: Allocation of Tier Conservation Costs ...............................................................25
Table 4-14: Delivery Costs per Unit of Water ........................................................................23
Table 4-15: Variable (Commodity) Rates by Tier ..................................................................26
Table 4-16: Proposed Five-Year Commodity Rates, by Tier ................................................27
Figure 3-1: Proposed Operating Financial Plan .....................................................................5
Figure 3-2: Projected CIP and Funding Sources ...................................................................6
Figure 3-3: Projected Ending Balances ..................................................................................6
Figure 4-1: Conceptual Water Budget Allocations ...............................................................15
Figure 4-2: Residential Bill Impacts.........................................................................................28
Figure 4-3: Non-Residential Bill Impacts .................................................................................28
Figure 4-4: Irrigation Bill Impacts ...........................................................................................28
Figure 4-5: SFR Percentage of Total Water Budget ..................................................................29
Figure 4-6: SFR Bill Impacts .....................................................................................................29
Figure 4-7: MFR Percentage of Total Water Budget ................................................................30
Figure 4-8: MFR Bill Impacts ....................................................................................................30
Figure 4-9: Apartments Percentage of Total Water Budget ....................................................31
Figure 4-10: Apartments Bill Impacts......................................................................................31
This page intentionally left blank to facilitate two-sided printing.
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |1
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In 2014,the East Valley Water District (the District)contracted with RFC to conduct a Water Cost of Service
and Rate Study (Study) to develop a financial plan as well as design rates for the water enterprise over the
next three years.
The District’s Water Enterprise is operating in an environment where operational costs continue to
increase and the reinvestment of funds to its infrastructure is required as outlined within the District’s
updated Master Plan.This is not a situation that is unique to the District, as many agencies throughout
the state are faced with the need to update capital infrastructure that is necessary to continue providing
reliable water services, adhere to new regulations and mandates, and meet service demands while water
supplies are strained in the face of the current statewide drought.
The District is located east of San Bernardino and covers an area of nearly 35 square miles, serving the
cities of Highland,portions of the City of San Bernardino,and unincorporated areas.The District provides
water service to a population of 97,000 through approximately 22,000 connections.The District’s water
resources include local groundwater,surface water rights on the Santa Ana River and imported State
water via San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, a wholesale member agency of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). Historically, the vast majority (nearly 80%)of
the District’s water demand has been covered by local groundwater production; however, groundwater
is a limited vital resource and without proper replenishment of the basin groundwater supplies cannot
support the same level of demand, given the current drought conditions.As such, the District’s supply mix
is changing through a reduction in groundwater resources and local surface water.Therefore, the District
is taking a proactive approach with securing this vital resource through a Groundwater Replenishment
Program.
1.2 WATER UTILITY
The current rate structure of the District consists of two components: a monthly service charge,
(determined by meter size), and a commodity charge (uniform for all customers). Table 1-1 provides a
summary of water accounts by meter size, with the majority of residential customers served by 5/8” and
3/4” meters.Table 1-2 identifies the monthly service charges by meter size and Table 1-3 lists the
commodity charges.
2 |East Valley Water District
Table 1-1: Water Accounts by Meter Size
Table 1-2:Monthly Base (Fixed Charges)
Table 1-3: Commodity Charge
Uniform RateCharge Unit
$1.77 hundred cubic feet (hcf)
Meter Size FY 2014-15
Accounts
5/8-in or 3/4-in 16,445
1-in 4,126
1 1/2-in 258
2-in 284
3-in 97
4-in 33
6-in 8
8-in 9
Total Water Accounts 21,260
Meter Size FY 2014-15
Rates
5/8-in or 3/4-in $13.71
1-in $20.87
1 1/2-in $38.60
2-in $88.48
3-in $163.25
4-in $270.06
6-in $537.09
8-in $857.52
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |1
2 ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE STUDY
The period for the Water Rate Cost of Service Study uses Fiscal Year 2014-15 as the base year and projects
through Fiscal Year 2017-18; however, the proposed rates herein are for the next three (3) years per the
District,as the District will continue to periodically review rates and take a measured approach with rate
adjustments.1 Certain cost escalation assumptions and inputs were incorporated into the Study to
adequately model future costs of the Water Enterprise. These assumptions were based on discussion with
and/or direction from District management. Assumptions include growth rates for customer accounts,
annual consumption for different customer classes, reduced water demand factors for recent
conservation goals of the District, inflation factors, and other miscellaneous assumptions. These
assumptions are presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2.The District’s customer base is predominately residential
with over 90% of total water usage from residential accounts. Due to the drought, and outreach for
conservation, the District has experienced a reduction in water demand of approximately 15%for FY 2014-
15.
2.1 Inflation
Table 2-1: Inflation Factor Assumptions
KEY FACTORS FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
General 3%3%3%
Salary 3%3%3%
Benefits 5%5%5%
Capital 3.37%3.37%3.37%
Energy 5%5%5%
2.2 Growth and Demand Factors
Table 2-2: Inflation Factor Assumptions
FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
GROWTH RATE[1]
All Customer Classes 0%0%0%
OTHER REVENUES PROJECTIONS
Interest Earnings 1%1%1%
General 1%1%1%
WATER DEMAND FACTOR -% of prior year consumption
Water Reduction
Factor
15%5%2%2%
State Water Project
($/AF)
$128 $128 $128
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |1
3 WATER SYSTEM -FINANCIAL PLAN
3.1 Financial Plan
3.1.1 Revenue Requirements
A review of a utility’s revenue requirements is a key step in the rate design process. The review involves
analyses of annual operating revenues under the current rates, operation and maintenance (O&M)
expenses, capital expenditures, transfers between funds and reserve requirements. This section of the
report provides a discussion on projected revenues, O&M and capital expenditures, the capital
improvement financing plan, debt service requirements, and overall revenue requirements over the 3-
year period of the Water Enterprise.
3.1.1.1 Revenues from Current Rates
The current water rate structure consists of two components: a bi-monthly service charge,(which varies
by meter size), and a volume charge (which is uniform for all customer classes). The projected water
revenues for the Water Enterprise derived from current rates are shown in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Projected Water Revenues at Current FY 2014-15 Rates
FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
Fixed
Revenue
$5,122,874 $5,122,874 $5,122,874 $5,122,874
Variable
Revenue[1]
$14,318,902 $14,318,902 $14,318,902 $14,318,902
Total Water
Revenues
$19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776[1]Annual variable revenue is based on District calculated revenue for FY 2013-14.
3.1.1.2 O&M Expenses
The District’s Fiscal Year 2014-15 budget values and the assumed inflation factors for the study period
were used as the basis for projecting O&M costs. Table 3-2 shows total budgeted and projected O&M
expenses, including debt, for Fiscal Year 2015-16 and the subsequent two years of the study period.
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |2
Table 3-2: Projected Water O&M Expenses and Debt Service
FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
Source of
Supply
$3,509,200 $3,642,502 $3,769,211 $3,882,481
Pumps &
Boosters
$945,217 $996,019 $1,047,594 $1,096,263
Treatment $1,380,581 $1,443,139 $1,504,186 $1,555,062
Transmission
& Dist.
$2,069,583 $2,207,909 $2,334,183 $2,411,205
Customer
Service
$924,546 $982,109 $1,034,442 $1,066,862
Administration $5,201,060 $5,539,864 $5,848,443 $6,045,461
Debt Service $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $5,516,179 $5,492,365
Total O&M
Expenses
$17,604,255 $18,786,708 $21,054,239 $21,549,698
3.1.1.3 Capital Improvement Plan
The District has adopted a long-term capital improvement plan (CIP) to address future Water Enterprise
needs. Table 3-3 shows the most recent 5-year CIP from the District. The Water Enterprise’s future CIP
needs will be funded both through proposed rates on a Pay-As-You-Go basis (PAYGO),and with debt
financing.
Table 3-3: Capital Improvement Expenditures
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |3
3.1.1.4 Reserve Requirements
The District has sound reserve policies to ensure a strong financial outlook and credit rating.Currently,
the District’s Operation Reserve is fully funded at approximately $3.5M, while the Capital Reserve,
expected to equal approximately $2.2M by Fiscal Year End 2015 is slightly underfunded given the updated
Capital Master Plan.
Operating Reserve –The Operating Reserve is used primarily to meet ongoing cash flow requirements.
Given the current and proposed mix of fixed charge versus variable (commodity) revenue, RFC believes
that the Operating Reserve target as established by the District Board of 90-120 days of annual O&M
expenses is sufficient.Currently, the District has total unrestricted cash reserves of $3.5M for the start of
FY 2014-15,and is expected to fund reserves by an additional $2M by Fiscal Year End.The $3.5M in
reserves achieves the 90-day minimum requirement for its Operation Reserve with a maximum target
equal to approximately $4.7M.As revenue collection varies based on monthly usage, reserves should be
set at an amount to offset this revenue fluctuation. A 90-day reserve ensures working capital to support
the operation, maintenance and administration of the utility. Maintaining this level of reserves also
provides liquid funds for the continued ongoing operations of the utility in the event of unforeseen costs
or interruption with the utility or the bi-monthly billing system.
Capital Replacement & Refurbishment (R&R)–The capital reserve is used primarily to meet capital
improvement requirements.Currently the District policy is a reserve target of one to three times annual
asset depreciation. This translates to a reserve of approximately $3.1M to $9.25M. At this time the Capital
R&R reserve is unfunded, but is expected to build up to approximately $2.2M through Fiscal Year End
2015. Based upon the District’s expected future CIP expenditures RFC recommends maintaining the
minimum balance at the current target identified within the District’s reserve policy (100% of
depreciation).
Emergency Capital Fund –The District has an Emergency Fund target of 2% of Total Assets, or $3.1Mfor Fiscal Year 2014-15.Currently the Emergency Capital fund is unfunded and through the updatedfinancial plan and the use of debt financing for a portion of capital expenses, the Emergency Reserveis expected to be partially funded.An Emergency Capital Fund is used in the event of critical assetfailure.
Collectively, the total minimum reserve target of the water utility is approximately $9.8M in FY 2014-2015.
3.1.1.5 Financial Pro Forma at Current Rates
Table 3-4 displays a summary pro forma of the Water Utility under current rates over the forecast period
(Appendix “A” provides a detailed summary of Table 3-4). All projections shown in the table are based on
the current rate structure and do not include any revenue adjustments.
Under this scenario, revenues generated from rates and other miscellaneous revenues exceed expenses
for Fiscal Year 2014-15; however, starting in Fiscal Year 2015-16, reserves will be used to fund the shortfall
of the District’s revenue requirements. The District’s O&M costs continue to increase through annual
4 |East Valley Water District
inflationary adjustments as previously listed under Table 2.1 –“Assumptions.”As such,current revenues
cannot fully fund O&M, capital, and debt obligations without drawing down reserves each year.
Commencing in Fiscal Year 2015-16,the Capital Reserve Balance would become negative and by Fiscal
Year 2016-17, reserves would be completely depleted.By Fiscal Year 2017-18,the revenue shortfall
reaches $8.5M primarily due to needed capital improvements.In addition, the District currently has debt
obligations and corresponding bond covenants to fulfill on an annual basis. With current rate revenue,
the District will not satisfy its 120% bond coverage ratio starting in Fiscal Year 2016-17.
In conclusion, the District will not be able to maintain fiscal sustainability and solvency under the current
rates.
Table 3-4:Financial Plan Pro-forma at Current Rates
FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
Total Revenues $19,901,776 $19,901,876 $19,901,977 $19,902,079
Total Expenditures $17,604,255 $18,786,708 $20,648,435 $21,203,942
Net Revenue to Fund
Reserves $2,297,521 $1,115,168 ($7634,807)($1,130,165)
Ending Reserves Balance $5,737,521 $3,510,829 ($2,019,913)($8,442,960)
Debt Coverage -2009
Rev Bonds 188%145%96%85%
3.1.2 Recommendations and Proposed Financial Plan
3.1.2.1 Proposed Revenue Adjustments
To ensure that the Water Enterprise will have adequate revenues to fund operating expen ses, capital
expenditures, and comply with its bond covenants, it is recommended that the District implement
revenue adjustments over the next three year planning horizon,Fiscal Year 2015-16 through Fiscal Year
2017-18.The first revenue adjustment would occur on June 1, 2015 with the remaining to adjustments
occurring on July 1 of each Fiscal Year.The proposed revenue adjustments would enable the agency to
complete the planned capital projects for the Study period while building up reserves closer to its
Minimum Reserve Target.The proposed adjustments also allow the District to maintain compliance with
its bond covenant of 120%coverage through the planning horizon, while issuing additional debt –equal
to $7M to fund a portion of its capital.
3.1.2.2 Proposed Financial Plan
A pro forma of the proposed revenue requirements is shown in Table 3-5 below (Appendix “B” provides
a detailed summary of Table 3-5).The proposed revenue requirements account for the District’s annual
financial needs while building up reserves and achieving positive net revenues through the study period
and compliance with debt covenants.
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |5
Table 3-5:Five-Year Water Enterprise Proposed Financial Plan -Pro-forma
FYE 2015 FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
Total Revenues $19,901,776 $21,846,053 $23,984,750 $25,631,570
Total Expenditures $17,604,255 $18,786,798 $21,054,239 $21,549,698
Net Revenue to Fund
Reserves $2,297,521 $3,059,345 $2,930,511 $4,081,872
Ending Reserves Balance $5,737,521 $12,455,007 $10,489,583 $9,278,573
Total Reserves Target $9,746,486 $10,058,969 $10,562,476 $10,999,204
Debt Coverage -2009 Rev
Bonds 188%200%167%190%
3.1.2.3 Proposed Financial Outlook
Although the proposed rates identified herein are for the next three-years,the following graphs provide
a snap shot over the next 5 years for the District to utilize for future planning and the figures below reflect
FY 2015-16 through FY 2019-20 (Figures 3-1,3-2,and 3-3).Figure 3-1 illustrates the operating position of
the Water Enterprise, where the expenses, inclusive of reserve funding and debt service, are shown by
stacked bars;and total revenues at current rates and proposed rates are shown by the horizontal trend
lines, where proposed revenue tracks at the top of the stacked bars. Figure 3-2 summarizes the projected
CIP and its funding sources,either PAYGO or debt financed. Figure 3-3 displays the ending total reserve
balance for the water utility,inclusive of operating and capital funds, where the horizontal trend line
indicates the target reserve balance (as recommended by the reserve requirements discussed in Section
3.1.1.4) and the bars indicate ending reserve balance.
Figure 3-1: Proposed Operating Financial Plan
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |6
Figure 3-2: Projected CIP and Funding Sources
Figure 3-3: Projected Ending Balances
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |7
4 WATER SYSTEM -COST OF SERVICE AND
RATE DESIGN
4.1 Legal Framework and Rate Methodology Background
Proposition 218 (California Constitution Article 13D) states that:
1.A property-related charge (such as water rates) imposed by a public agency on a parcel
shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
2.Revenues derived by the charge shall not be used for any other purpose other than that
for which the charge was imposed.
3.The amount of the charge imposed upon any parcel shall not exceed the proportional cost
of service attributable to the parcel.
4.No charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used or immediately
available to the owner of property.
5.A written notice of the proposed charge in conformity with Government Code Section
53755 shall be mailed to the record owner of each parcel at least 45 days prior to the
public hearing, when the agency considers all written protests against the charge.
As stated in the American Water Works Association M1 Manual (“M1 Manual”), “the costs of water rates
and charges should be recovered from classes of customers in proportion to the cost of serving those
customers.”Prop 218 ensures that water rates cannot be “arbitrary and capricious”, meaning that the
rate-setting methodology must be sound and that there must be a nexus between costs and the rates
charged. In the Rate Methodology, RFC ensures that all aspects of Proposition 218 are followed and that
it creates rates that charge customers equitably.
In conjunction with Proposition 218, Article X (2) of the State Constitution institutes the need to preserve
the State’s water supplies and to discourage the wasteful or unreasonable use of water by encouraging
conservation. In addition,Section 106 of the Water Code declares that the highest priority use of water is
for domestic purposes, with irrigation secondary. In connection with meeting the objectives of Article X,
Water Code Sections 370 (AB2882) and 375 authorize a water purveyor to utilize its water rate design to
incentivize the efficient use of water.Although incentives to conserve water could be provided by
implementing a higher rate for water as consumption increases, a nexus between rates and cost incurred
to provide water at those rates must be developed to achieve compliance with Proposition 218.
Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution (established in 1976) provides as follows:
“It is hereby declared that because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires
that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capable,
and that the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be prevented, and that
the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof
in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.”
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |8
Given the current drought conditions and the District’s goal to implement a rate structure that promotes
the efficient use of water and sets rates equitably to its customers,the District has determined that
Budget-Based rates would be the most appropriate rate structure to implement moving forward.
Government Code Section 370 ET SEQ. (Allocation-Based Conservation Water Pricing)
In 2000, the California Legislature (AB 2882), consistent with the above-referenced constitutional
provisions, adopted a body of law entitled “Allocation-Based Conservation Water Pricing” (Water Code
Section 370 et seq.)
Water Code Section 370 provides in part as follows:
“The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The use of allocation-based conservation water pricing by public entities that sell and distribute water
is one effective means by which waste or unreasonable use of water can be prevented and water can be
saved in the interest of the people and for the public welfare, within the contemplation of Section 2 of
Article X of the California Constitution.
(b) It is in the best interest of the people of California to encourage public entities to voluntarily use
allocation-based conservation water pricing, tailored to local needs and conditions, as a means of
increasing efficient uses of water, and further discouraging wasteful or unreasonable use of water under
both normal and dry-year hydrologic conditions.”
Water Code Section 372 provides as follows:
“(a)A public entity may employ allocation-based conservation water pricing that meets all of the following
criteria.
(1) Billing is based on metered water use.
(2) A basic use allocation is established for each customer account that provides a reasonable amount of
water for the customer’s needs and property characteristics. Factors used to determine the basic use
allocation may include, but are not limited to the number of occupants, the type or classification of use,
the size of lot or irrigated area, and the local climate data for the billing period. Nothing in this chapter
prohibits a customer of the public entity from challenging whether the basic use allocation established for
that customer’s account is reasonable under the circumstances. Nothing in this chapter is intended to
permit public entities to limit the use of property through the establishment of a basic use allocation.
(3) A basic charge is imposed for all water used within the customer’s basic use allocation, ex cept that at
the option of the public entity, a lower rate may be applied to any portion of the basic use allocation that
the public entity has determined to represent superior or more than reasonable conservation efforts.
(4) A conservation charge shall be imposed on all increments of water use in excess of the basic use
allocation. The increments may be fixed or may be determined on a percentage or any other basis, without
limitation on the number of increments, or any requirement that the increments or conservation charges
be sized, or ascend uniformly, or in a specified relationship. The volumetric prices for the lowest through
the highest priced increments shall be established in an ascending relationship that is economically
structured to encourage conservation and reduce the inefficient use of water, consistent with Section 2 of
Article X of the California Constitution.
(b)---
(1) Except as specified in subdivision (a), the design of an allocation-based conservation
pricing rate structure shall be determined in the discretion of the public entity.
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |9
(2) The public entity may impose meter charges or other fixed charges to recover fixed costs
of water service in addition to the allocation-based conservation pricing rate structure.
(c) A public entity may use one or more allocation-based conservation water pricing structures for
any class of municipal or other service that the public entity provides.”
This Rate Study establishes a standard for efficient usage and then establishes a budget for each individual
customer. That defines how much water is considered efficient. Customers with usage above this efficient
usage budget pay a higher rate for their “inefficient’ or wasteful” usage.
This Rate Study conforms to the principles set forth in the enabling statutes for Water Budget Rate
Structures.
Tiered Rates -“Inclining” Block-Rate Structures, (which are synonymous with “Increasing Block-Rate
Structures”) when properly designed and differentiated by customer class as this Rate Study does, allows
a water district to send consistent price incentives for conservation to customers.Due to heightened
interest in water conservation, “Increasing Block-Rates” have been increasingly favored, especially in
relatively water-scarce regions, such as Southern California.
A tiered rate structure was upheld in the Brydon v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist.California Court of Appeal,
Fourth District (1995) (“Brydon”). In Brydon, a pre-Proposition 218 decision,the Appellate Court rejected
the challenge that the tiered rate structure constituted a “special tax” in violation of Proposition 13.
Proportionality -There is a fair amount of ambiguity in the way that Proposition 218 was drafted –none
more so than the issue of “proportionality.” It has taken a succession of court rulings over several years
to clarify the substantive requirement of Proposition 218.
The recent Appellate case of Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (2013)(“Pajaro Case”)
California Court of Appeal, Sixth District has provided much guidance on several important Proposition
218 issues, including the issue of proportionality. In the Pajaro Case, the Appellate Court held in part as
follows:
1.That proportionality is not measured on an individual parcel basis, but instead is
measured collectively, considering all rate payers. As such, the Appellate Court in Pajaro
confirmed the common practice of grouping customers into classes or sub-groups with
comparable service costs and setting rates by class rather than parcel .Rate setting by class met
the Prop 218 requirement that fees be proportionate to the cost of providing service to each
parcel.
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |10
Given the opinion in the Pajaro Case, utilities can develop rates by grouping customers and meet the
requirements of Proposition 218, as opposed to the strict interpretation which would require cost
proportionality to each parcel receiving service. This was another major clarification of Proposition 218
since cost proportionality to individual parcels is almost impossible to achieve in the strict sense.
4.1.1 COST BASED RATE SETTING METHODOLOGY
As stated in the M1 Manual, the AWWA Rates and Charges Subcommittee agree with the Proposition 218
that “the costs of water rates and charges should be recovered from classes of customers in proportion
to the cost of serving those customers.”The court found in the Pajaro Case that reliance on the M1
Manual in rate making complies with the requirements of Proposition 218.To develop utility rates that
comply with Proposition 218 and industry standards while meeting other emerging goals and objectives
of the utility, there are four major steps:
DETERMINATION OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT The rate-making process starts with the determination of
future revenue requirements to sufficiently fund the utility’s operation and maintenance (O&M), capital
replacement and refurbishment (R&R), capital improvement and perpetuation of the system and to
ensure preservation of the utility’s financial integrity. The basic revenue requirements of a utility include
O&M expenses, debt service payments, contributions to specified reserves and the cost of capital
expenditures that are not debt financed.
COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The annual costs of providing water services, determined in the financial plan
development,and should be allocated among the customers commensurate with their service
requirements. In this step, costs are identified and allocated to functional cost components and
distributed to respective customer classes according to the industry standards provided in the M1 Manual
published by AWWA. California Government Code Section 54999 mandates agencies to conduct a
thorough cost of service analysis every ten years in determining the utility rates.
RATE DESIGN and CALCULATIONS Rates do more than simply recover costs. Within the legal framework
and industry standards, properly designed rates should support and optimize a blend of various utility
objectives, such as conservation, affordability for essential needs and revenue stability, among other
objectives. Rates should work as a public information tool in communicating these objectives to
customers.
RATE ADOPTION In the last step of the rate-making process, to comply with Proposition 218
requirements, the results of the analyses are documented in a Study Report to help educate the public
about the proposed changes, the rationale and justifications behind the changes and their anticip ated
financial impacts in lay terms. At least 45 days after sending out the public notices, at a public hearing,
the agency shall consider all written protests against the proposed rates. If there is no majority protest,
the agency can officially adopt the new rates.
The enterprise’s revenue requirements are, by definition, the cost of providing service. This cost is then
used as the basis to develop unit costs for the water components and to allocate costs to the various
customer classes in proportion to the water services rendered. The concept of proportionate requires
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |11
that cost allocations should consider both the average quantity of water consumed (base) and the peak
rate at which it is consumed (peaking).Use of peaking is consistent with cost of providing service because
the water system is designed to handle peak demands, and the additional costs associated with design,
construction and maintenance of facilities specified to meet these peak demands need to be allocated to
those imposing such costs on the utility so that the costs can be recovered appropriately.
4.1.2.1 FUNCTIONAL COST COMPONENTS
The total cost of water service is analyzed by system function in order to equitably distribute costs in
relation to how it’s incurred, in general, which then allows each cost component to be recovered through
the most appropriate revenue recovery (i.e. fixed versus variable). For this analysis, wate r utility costs of
service are assigned under the Base-Extra Capacity method to the following functional cost components:
Water Supply, Treatment, Base, Peaking (Max Day / Max Hour), Customer Service, Capacity, Fire
Protection, and Conservation. This method is consistent with the American Water Works Association M1
Manual, and is widely used in the water industry to design rates for retail customers. Table 4 -1 provides
a breakdown of the District’s revenue requirements by functional cost components, using FYE 2016 as the
baseline to account for how costs are incurred.
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |12
Table 4-1: Detailed Revenue Requirements by Function
Expense Allocated by Water Supply Treatment Base Max Day Max Hour Customer Service Capacity Fire Protection Conservation
Source of Supply $3,642,502 $1,443,239 $2,086,413 $152,884 $343,990 $2,720,397 $3,946,197 $151,020 $0
Regular Labor $349,043 Water Supply 349,043.11$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Overtime $15,810 Water Supply 15,810.31$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Benefits $147,718 Water Supply 147,718.16$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Purchased Water $339,200 Water Supply 339,200.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
GW Replenishment $750,080 Water Supply 750,080.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Water Assessment $211,150 Water Supply 211,150.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $41,200 Water Supply 41,200.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Chemicals $206,000 Water Supply 206,000.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Contract Services $164,800 Water Supply 164,800.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Telephone $0 Water Supply -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Electricity $1,417,500 Water Supply 1,417,500.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Pumps & Boosters
Regular Labor $91,213 Base -$-$91,213.36$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Overtime $11,723 Base -$-$11,723.04$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Benefits $33,483 Base -$-$33,482.98$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $20,600 Base -$-$20,600.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Contract Services $51,500 Max Hour -$-$11,730.56$9,384.44$21,115.00$-$-$9,270.00$-$
Electricity $787,500 Max Hour -$-$179,375.00$143,500.00$322,875.00$-$-$141,750.00$-$
Treatment
Regular Labor $220,128 Treatment -$220,128.23$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Overtime $17,585 Treatment -$17,584.56$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Benefits $78,127 Treatment -$78,126.96$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $15,450 Treatment -$15,450.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Chemicals $257,500 Treatment -$257,500.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Contract Services $257,500 Treatment -$257,500.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Treatment Services $0 Treatment -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Telephone $10,300 Treatment -$10,300.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Electricity $210,000 Treatment -$210,000.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Permits $10,000 Treatment -$10,000.00$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Additional Treatment for Supplemental Water$366,649 Treatment -$366,649.25$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Transmission & Distribution
Regular Labor $954,700 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$954,699.78$-$-$
Overtime $87,923 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$87,922.80$-$-$
Benefits $404,586 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$404,586.05$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $288,400 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$288,400.00$-$-$
Tools $15,450 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$15,450.00$-$-$
Chemicals $0 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Contract Services $401,700 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$401,700.00$-$-$
Permits $50,000 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$50,000.00$-$-$
Postage $5,150 Capacity -$-$-$-$-$-$5,150.00$-$-$
Customer Service
Regular Labor $399,210 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$399,210.45$-$-$-$
Overtime $23,446 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$23,446.08$-$-$-$
Benefits $191,020 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$191,020.42$-$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $4,635 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$4,635.00$-$-$-$
Tools $1,030 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$1,030.00$-$-$-$
Office Supplies $1,545 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$1,545.00$-$-$-$
Contract Services $208,318 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$208,317.50$-$-$-$
Banking Services $87,500 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$87,500.00$-$-$-$
Printing & Publishing $0 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Legal Services $2,575 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$2,575.00$-$-$-$
Telephone $3,605 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$3,605.00$-$-$-$
Postage $56,650 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$56,650.00$-$-$-$
Professional Development $2,575 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$2,575.00$-$-$-$
Education Assistance $0 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Cash Over/Short $0 Customer Service -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Administrative
Regular Labor $1,959,651 General/Admin -$-$653,217.10$-$-$653,217.10$653,217.10$-$-$
Temporary Labor $19,695 General/Admin -$-$6,564.90$-$-$6,564.90$6,564.90$-$-$
Overtime $38,920 General/Admin -$-$12,973.50$-$-$12,973.50$12,973.50$-$-$
Standby $34,700 General/Admin -$-$11,566.73$-$-$11,566.73$11,566.73$-$-$
Benefits $966,274 General/Admin -$-$322,091.42$-$-$322,091.42$322,091.42$-$-$
Materials & Supplies $156,148 General/Admin -$-$52,049.33$-$-$52,049.33$52,049.33$-$-$
Tools $6,335 General/Admin -$-$2,111.50$-$-$2,111.50$2,111.50$-$-$
Office Supplies $31,415 General/Admin -$-$10,471.67$-$-$10,471.67$10,471.67$-$-$
Contract Services $963,380 General/Admin -$-$321,126.53$-$-$321,126.53$321,126.53$-$-$
Banking Services $35,000 General/Admin -$-$11,666.67$-$-$11,666.67$11,666.67$-$-$
Printing & Publishing $37,492 General/Admin -$-$12,497.33$-$-$12,497.33$12,497.33$-$-$
Legal Services $212,695 General/Admin -$-$70,898.33$-$-$70,898.33$70,898.33$-$-$
Rents & Leases $0 General/Admin -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Utilities $10,043 General/Admin -$-$3,347.50$-$-$3,347.50$3,347.50$-$-$
Telephone $110,952 General/Admin -$-$36,983.87$-$-$36,983.87$36,983.87$-$-$
Electricity $58,013 General/Admin -$-$19,337.50$-$-$19,337.50$19,337.50$-$-$
Fuel $128,625 General/Admin -$-$42,875.00$-$-$42,875.00$42,875.00$-$-$
Permits $53,200 General/Admin -$-$17,733.33$-$-$17,733.33$17,733.33$-$-$
Postage $24,154 General/Admin -$-$8,051.17$-$-$8,051.17$8,051.17$-$-$
Memberships & Dues $62,727 General/Admin -$-$20,909.00$-$-$20,909.00$20,909.00$-$-$
Professional Development $111,858 General/Admin -$-$37,286.00$-$-$37,286.00$37,286.00$-$-$
Education Assistance $13,339 General/Admin -$-$4,446.17$-$-$4,446.17$4,446.17$-$-$
General Insurance $180,250 General/Admin -$-$60,083.33$-$-$60,083.33$60,083.33$-$-$
Insurance Claims $0 General/Admin -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$
Debt Service $3,975,066 Capital -$-$1,086,518.14$1,086,518.14$-$-$1,086,518.14$715,511.95$-$
CIP $3,341,859 Capital -$-$913,441.48$913,441.48$-$-$913,441.48$601,534.63$-$
Conservation $1,825,000 Conservation -$-$-$-$-$-$-$-$1,825,000.00$
Subtotal Revenue Requirements$23,628,567 $3,642,502 $1,443,239 $4,086,372 $2,152,844 $343,990 $2,720,397 $5,946,156 $1,468,067 $1,825,000
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |13
4.1.2 COST OF SERVICE
Once the total cost of each functional component is calculated, the next step is to determine the most
appropriate way to recover such costs based on the following criteria:1)how the cost is incurred,2)
District policy objectives,3)promote water efficiency,and 4)revenue stability to name a few. As an
example, one policy objective of the District is to recover more revenue from the fixed charge when
compared to the amount that has historically been recovered, equaled to approximately 25%. As such,
the percentage split of fixed and variable revenue has been recalibrated to reflect 40% from the fixed
charges and 60% from the commodity rates. Below is a summary of how costs were allocated to fixed
versus variable revenue components.
Therefore, monthly fixed charges recovers all or a portion of costs associated with customer service,
capacity,and fire protection. Commodity rates recover all or a portion of costs associated with Water
Supply, Treatment, Base, Max Day and Max Hour, Capacity, and Conservation Programs.
This study calculated water rates based on Fiscal Year 2014-15 as the base year with Fiscal Year 2015-16
through Fiscal Year 2017-18 for the new proposed rates. The annual revenue requirements or costs of
service to be recovered from rates include O&M expenses (including water supply),debt service and
capital costs. O&M expenses include costs directly related to the supply, treatment, and distribution of
water as well as routine maintenance of system facilities.Table 4-2 summarizes revenue requirements,
by function,for each year of the study horizon.The cost of service analysis is based upon the premise that
the utility must generate annual revenues adequate to meet estimated annual revenue requirements.
14 |East Valley Water District
Table 4-2: Revenue Requirements by Function –FYE 2016 through FYE 2018
4.2 Proposed Rate Structure –Water Budget
The District has decided to implement a water budget rate structure to incentivize conservation and
promote the efficient use of water by its customers. The description of allocations to individual
customers,and the development of water budgets,is described here for completeness of the report.
As referenced in the statutes in section 4-1, “Allocation-Based Conservation Water Pricing Rate Structure”
(commonly referred to as a “Water-Budget Rate Structure”) is a form of increasing block rates where the
amount of water within the first block or blocks is based on the estimat ed, efficient water needs of an
individual customer. Water-budget rates differ from other metered water rate designs in two key ways.
First, the blocks are established based on water budgets that represent varying levels of each customer’s
efficient water use. Second, water-budget rates require the public agency to set specific standards for
what is, and what is not, considered efficient water use for an individual customer.
4.3 Water Budget Definitions
The American Water Works Association Journal defines water budget as “the quantity of water required
for an efficient level of water use by that customer”(Source: American Water Works Association Journal,
May 2008, Volume 100, Number 5). Therefore each customer has their own allocation or water budget
as shown in the Figure 4-1.
Accounts Meters
(Capacity Ratios)
Fire
Protection
Water
Supply Delivery Tier Demand
(Tier 1 = Base)
Percentage 11.5%17.6%10.7%21.5%17.3%21.3%
Fiscal Year Ending Revenue
FY 2016 $21,385,953 $2,462,201 $3,767,260 $2,297,455 $5,085,741 $3,698,530 $4,557,460
FY 2017 $23,524,549 $2,708,422 $4,143,986 $2,527,200 $5,063,352 $4,068,383 $5,013,206
FY 2018 $25,171,267 $2,898,011 $4,434,065 $2,704,104 $5,417,787 $4,353,170 $5,364,130
60%
Variable
40%
Fixed
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |15
Figure 4-1:Conceptual Water Budget Allocations
Water budget allocations are usually broken into two components:an indoor water budget (IWB)and an
outdoor water budget (OWB). The indoor and outdoor budget allocations represent the first two tiers of
an inclining tiered rate structure and are applied to all customer classes within the District, with the
exception of irrigators who only receive an outdoor budget.
4.3.1 INDOOR WATER BUDGET
The IWB is determined by a customer’s size and a fixed allocation per person.The proposed IWB formula
is as follows:
indoor
indoor V
748
DF*ServiceofDays*DUs*SizeHousehold*GPCDIWB
where
GPCD –Gallons per capita per day. The standard consumption per person per day is set at 60
gallons based on discussion with the District, which stated that the average daily water use
per capita.
Household Size –Number of residents. The 2010 census lists the average household size at
3.42 which includes both single and multi-family housing. The District’s policy is to provide
adequate water for health and safety needs and minimize customer complaints and requests
for variances. As such the default values for residential household is 4 persons per dwelling.
DUs –Dwelling Units. The number of a self-contained structure, in whole or in part, used as a
home or residence by one or more persons on a given parce l of land.As part of the District
billing system,SFR includes residential accounts with 1-2 DUs, MFR 3 DUs and Apartment as
4 or more DUs.
16 |East Valley Water District
Days of Service. The number of days of service varies with each billing cycle for each customer.
The actual number of days of service will be applied to calculate the indoor water budget for
each billing cycle.
DFindoor –Indoor drought factor. The percentage of indoor water budget allotted during
drought conditions. The drought factor is subject to the approval of the District’s Board of
Directors at different drought stages. The indoor drought factor is currently set at 100 %(i.e.
no reduction in indoor water budget).
Vindoor –Indoor variance. The additional water allotment to be granted for extenuating
circumstances is subject to District’s approval or verification as outlined in the District’s
variance program
748 is a constant and the conversion unit from gallons to the billing unit of hcf.
4.3.2 OUTDOOR WATER BUDGET
The outdoor water budget (OWB) is determined based on three main variables: irrigable landscape area,
weather data and ET Adjustment Factor. The irrigable landscape area, measured as the square footage
of landscaped surface on a customer’s property, is estimated using spatial (GIS)parcel data provided to
RFC by the District. Weather data is based on local estimates of EvapoTranspiration (ET0),or the amount
of water loss to the atmosphere,over a given time period,at specific atmospheric conditions. ET0 is the
amount of water (in inches) needed for a hypothetical reference crop to maintain its health and
appearance. The ET Adjustment Factor (ETAF) is a coefficient that adjusts ET0 values based on plant factor
and irrigation efficiency.The monthly ET0, ETAF, and the resulting applied EvapoTranspiration for turf
ETc is provided in Table 4-2:
Figure 4-2: CIMIS 3-Year Evapotranspiration Readings for District’s Service Area
ETo ETAF ETc
•Jan 2.79 x 61%= 1.70
•Feb 3.05 x 64%= 1.95
•March 4.62 x 75%= 3.47
•April 5.81 x 104%= 6.04
•May 7.33 x 95%= 6.96
•June 8.49 x 88%= 7.47
ETo ETAF ETc
•July 8.63 x 94%= 8.11
•Aug 7.95 x 86%= 6.84
•Sept 6.32 x 74%= 4.68
•Oct 4.40 x 75%= 3.30
•Nov 2.69 x 69%= 1.86
•Dec 2.26 x 60%= 1.36
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |17
The formula to calculate outdoor water budget is as follows:
outdooroutdoor
0 DF*V1200
ETAF*ET*AreaLandscapeOWB
where
ET0 is measured in inches of water during the billing period based on daily data acquired from
the two most proximate California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
stations to the District’s service area.
ETAF (% of ET0) is defined using ETAF for turf grasses in California. Similar to ET0,ETAF also
varies by month.
Landscape Area (or Irrigable Landscape Area), in square feet,is the measured irrigable
landscape area served by a customer’s meter.
DFoutdoor –Outdoor drought factor. The percentage of outdoor water budget allotted during
drought conditions. The drought factor is subject to the approval of the District’s Board of
Directors at different drought stages. The outdoor drought factor is currently set at 100 % (i.e.
no reduction in indoor water budget).
Voutdoor –Outdoor variance. The additional water allotment to be granted for extenuating
circumstances is subject to District’s approval or verification as outlined in the variance
program.
1200 is a constant and the conversion unit from inch*ft2 to the billing unit of hundred cubic
feet (ccf).
4.3.3 WATER BUDGET ALLOCATIONS BY CUSTOMER CLASSES
Table 4-3 summarizes the water budget allocation by customer class.All customer classes will receive a
water budget.Single Family (SFR),Multi Family (MFR)and Apartment (collectively, “Residential”)will
receive indoor and outdoor budgets in Tier 1 and Tier 2 respectively, based upon the preceding definitions
of indoor and outdoor water budgets. Irrigation customers will only receive water budgets in Tier 2
(outdoor water budget) as they do not have indoor requirements. All non-residential accounts will receive
indoor and outdoor budgets based upon historical use where 90% of historical use is considered Tier 1
(indoor) and 10% Tier 2 (outdoor).
Table 4-3:Basis for Total Water budget Allocation
Customer Class Water Budget Allocations Default Values
Single Family IWB + OWB Household Size = 4 persons
Outdoor –Parcel Specific
Multi Family IWB + OWB Household Size = 4 persons
Outdoor –Parcel Specific
Apartment IWB + OWB Household Size = 4 persons
Outdoor –Parcel Specific
Non-Residential*IWB + OWB IWB = 90% historical use
OWB = 10% historical
Irrigation OWB Outdoor –Parcel Specific
ETAF =100% =ET0
*Based on Senate Bill x7-7 (i.e. Water Conservation Act of 2009), which requires commercial users to cut
back by 10 percent, we will define indoor use at 90 percent of historical use and the remaining 10%as
outdoor, or discretionary, use.
18 |East Valley Water District
4.3.4 TIER DEFINITIONS
Based on the information in Table 4-3, the tier definitions are developed as shown in Table 4 -4 below.
The main difference between Residential accounts and Irrigation accounts is that Irrigation accounts do
not have a Tier 1 allotment which is reserved for indoor use. All customer classes have their Tier 3
allotment defined as any amount greater than the total water budget.
Table 4-4:Total Water Budget Allocation with Drought Factor Equal to 100%
Tiers Single Family Multi Family Apartments Non-
Residential Irrigation
Tier 1 –Indoor Use 100% IWB 100% IWB 100% IWB 100% IWB
Tier 2 –Outdoor Use 100% OWB 100% OWB 100% OWB 100% OWB 100% OWB
Tier 3 –Inefficient Use >100% TWB >100% TWB >100% TWB >100% TWB >100% TWB
TWB = Total Water Budget = IWB + OWB
The tier definitions are tailored to the unique consumption patterns of the District’s customers and subject
to the District’s policy decisions. The proposed tier definitions are based on a number of factors, including:
RFC’s direct experience with developing budget-based rates, guidelines on efficiency within SB 7x-7,
current usage information from the District’s consumption files and updated Master Plan, community
workshops with a Ratepayer Working Group, and policy discussion with the Board. The first priority for
water use is essential indoor water use (Tier 1)for health,safety and sanitary purposes. Maintaining
healthy landscaping is important,yet non-essential, therefore the Tier 2 rate is set for efficient outdoor
water use. Tier 3 is for all water consumption in excess of total water budget.Tier 3 water allows
individuals to use additional water above their total water budget; while providing a signal to each
customer on their potential inefficient water usage.Tier three provides a reasonable mechanism for
providing incentives for conservation and the primary costs associated with Tier 3 are avoidable.
Therefore, as water efficiency is achieved, revenue as well as expenses would both be reduced.
Any usage above an efficient level is subject to higher charges to fund conservation programs, increased
energy costs, imported water, as well as supplemental water supply programs. The current water supply
is reserved for efficient water use within the District for indoor, outdoor and commercial use.
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |19
Based on the tier definitions shown in Table 4-4 above, the projected tiered water usage for FY 2016 is
shown in Table 4-5 below.
Table 4-5:Projected Water Consumption (by tier)
Tiers FY 2015-16
Tier 1 –Indoor Use 3,603,136
Tier 2 –Outdoor Use 1,746,093
Tier 3 –Inefficient Use 1,455,643
Total (ccf)6,804,873
4.4 Proposed Rates
4.4.1 Fixed Charges
Currently, the District’s fixed monthly water c harge generates approximately 25% of total revenue.
Although the District’s fixed costs are well over 70% of total expenses, similar to many water districts
throughout the state and country, the District also desires to promote conservation which requires a
majority of the District’s cost to be recovered from the variable charges as a means to provide incentive
to customers to conserve water; thereby, reducing their total monthly bill. As a means to continue to
promote conservation, while recovering more of the District’s fixed costs through the monthly fixed
charge to ensure revenue stability as conservation is achieved,the fixed monthly charges will now recover
40%of total revenue (40% Fixed / 60% Variable).
The monthly fixed service charge has the following main components: customer related costs and meter
service (capacity) related costs, and fire protection related to public hydrants (private fire lines also pays
a portion of fire protection costs). Customer costs include customer-related and meter-related costs.
Customer costs are uniform for all customers and include such costs as meter reading, bill ing, collecting
and accounting.
Capacity costs include maintenance and capital costs, a portion of the capacity related costs and fire
protection for the District’s 2,960 public fire hydrants (see Appendix “C” for cost allocation between public
hydrants and private fire lines). RFC utilized the American Water Works Association meter service cost
ratios in calculating the meter component of the fixed charge. These costs are assigned based on meter
size. Based on these ratios, the District’s 21,260 accounts have a meter equivalency of 42,882.
20 |East Valley Water District
Table 4-6 shows the fixed charge separated between costs apportioned evenly over all units and meter
equivalencies. Table 4-7 shows the proposed three-year monthly service charges, and Table 4-8 shows
the proposed five-year monthly service charges for Private Fire Lines by size of connection.
Table 4-6: Fixed Charge Calculation –5/8” Meter
Accounts Calculation FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018Customer Account Costs $2,462,201 $2,708,422 $2,898,011Number of Accounts 21,260 21,260 21,260
Monthly Charge/ Account $9.65 $10.62 $11.36
Meters Calculation FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018Meter Capacity Costs $3,767,260 $4,143,986 $4,434,065Public Fire Protection Costs $2,051,618 $2,256,780 $2,414,755Number of Equivalent Meters 42,882 42,882 42,882
Monthly Charge/ Equiv. Meter $11.31 $12.44 $13.31
Cost for 5/8” Meter $20.96 $23.06 $24.67
Table 4-7: Proposed Three-Year Monthly Service Charges (FY 2015-16 through FY 2017-18)
Meter
Size
Current
Charge
Meter
Capacity
Ratio
FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
5/8"$13.71 1.00 $20.96 $23.06 $24.67
3/4"$13.71 1.50 $26.61 $29.27 $31.32
1"$20.87 2.50 $37.92 $41.71 $44.63
1 1/2"$38.60 5.00 $66.19 $72.81 $77.91
2"$88.48 8.00 $100.12 $110.13 $117.84
3"$163.25 17.50 $207.54 $228.30 $244.28
4"$270.06 31.50 $365.85 $402.44 $430.61
6"$537.09 65.00 $744.67 $819.14 $876.48
8"$857.52 120.00 $1,366.62 $1,503.28 $1,608.51
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |21
Table 4-8:Fixed Charge Calculation –Fire Lines[1]
Meter Size Demand
Factor Meter Count Equiv. Meters
(Size x Count)
FYE 2016
Charge
1"1.00 1,050 1,050 $7.99
1 1/2"2.90 1 1.5 $11.98
2"6.19 0 0 $15.97
3"17.98 0 0 $23.96
4"38.32 48 192 $31.94
6"111.31 138 828 $47.91
8"237.21 48 384 $63.88
10"426.58 11 110 $79.85
Total 1,296 2,565.5
[1] The Fire Protection Cost Allocation between Private Fire Lines and Public Hydrants is provided
herein as Appendix “C”
Table 4-9:Proposed Five Year Monthly Private Fire Line Service Charges
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
1"$7.99 $8.78 $9.40
1 1/2"$11.98 $13.18 $14.10
2"$15.97 $17.57 $18.80
3"$23.96 $26.35 $28.20
4"$31.94 $35.14 $37.59
6"$47.91 $52.70 $56.39
8"$63.88 $70.27 $75.19
10"$79.85 $87.84 $93.99
4.4.2 Variable Charges
Approximately 60% of the District’s revenue requirements are proposed to be recovered from the
commodity charges, based on the amount of water used. Variable cost components include delivery
costs,peak costs (max day / max hour),conservation costs, groundwater replenishment costs and water
supply costs.
For this analysis, consumption and peaking characteristics of customers as well as available water supplies
of the District were analyzed to appropriately allocate costs between each tier and allocate a pro rata
share of groundwater, surface water and/or imported water to each tier based on water availability and
water demand of each Tier.Variable costs were separated into four discrete components-Water Supply,
22 |East Valley Water District
Delivery, Conservation, and Tier Demand. The sum of each of the variable cost components, equals the
rate per unit of water per tier. This approach synchronizes the objectives of Article X (2) and Proposition
218 in developing a cost of service tiered rate structure.
4.4.2.1 Water Supply Costs &Groundwater Replenishment
The District has three distinct sources of supply. Groundwater production is the cheapest source of supply
and accounted for 84% of water production in FY 13-14. However, the groundwater basin is in overdraft
which has two immediate implications for the District. First, the District’s annual entitlement to the basin
yields around 12,000 AF per year. In FY 13-14 the District pumped over 18,000 AF. Second,to ensure the
District’s groundwater is a reliable source in the future, the District is implementing a Groundwater
Replenishment Program. The District will utilize 5,860 AF of imported water which will be injected directly
in to the groundwater basin without treatment. This water will benefit all District users, across classes
with the cost spread across all units of water.
The second source of supply is the District’s holdings in North Fork Water Company. North Fork has rights
to surface water from the Santa Ana River, of which East Valley Water District owns 5,849 shares. The
District estimates their FY 2015-2016 assessment will deliver 3,350 AF for production at the Water
Treatment Plant. Note that surface water requires treatment which then yields a cost per acre foot of
$303.57.
Lastly, the District buys imported water to supplement groundwater and surface water supplies.Imported
water is purchased from MWD at a San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District subsidized rate of $128
per acre foot.The District anticipates its requirements of imported water to increase from approximately
1,500 AF to 2,650 AF per year.The import of water could increase substantially in subsequent years and
is heavily dependent on if the current drought continues.Note that imported water requires treatment
which then yields a cost per acre foot of $368.54. Table 4-11 presents the cost per hcf calculation for each
source of supply.
Table 4-10: Unit Cost of Water Supplies by Source
Source of Supply Production Quantity
(Acre Feet)
Water Supply
Cost Recovery
Treatment
Cost Recovery
Cost per
Acre Foot Cost/HCF
GW Replenishment 1 5,860 $750,080 $0 $128.00 $0.12
Ground Water 2 12,326 $2,342,072 $0 $212.29 $0.49
Surface Water 3,350 $211,150 $805,808 $303.57 $0.70
Imported Water 2,650 $339,200 $637,431 $368.54 $0.85
Total 24,186 $3,642,502 $1,443,239
1 Rate per HCF is derived by spreading total cost over total usage
2 Rate per AF accounts for System Water Loss at 6%.
4.4.2.2 Delivery Costs
Delivery costs, also commonly referred to as Base costs, are those operating and capital costs of the water
system associated with delivering water to all customers at a constant average rate of use. Therefore,
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |23
delivery costs are spread over all units of water, irrespective of customer classes or t iers, to calculate a
uniform rate.
Table 4-11: Delivery Costs per Unit of Water
Customer Class Annual Use Percent of Use Delivery Cost Delivery Cost
(HCF)
Residential 5,388,312 79.2%$2,928,613 $ 0.55
Non-Residential 811,492 11.9%$441,056 $ 0.55
Irrigation 605,068 8.9%$328,862 $ 0.556,804,873 100.0%$3,698,530 $ 0.55
4.4.2.3 Peak Costs (Max Day / Max Hour)
Extra capacity or peaking costs represent those costs incurred to meet customer peak demands for water
in excess of a baseline usage (Tier 1). Total extra capacity costs are apportioned between maximum day
and maximum hour demands based on the type of expense. The maximum day demand is the maximum
amount of water used in a single day in a year. The maximum hour demand is the maximum usage in an
hour on the maximum usage day. Different facilities are designed to meet different peaking
characteristics. Therefore, extra capacity costs include capital improvements and power related costs,
and have been apportioned between base, maximum day, and maximum hour. Costs allocated to base
are part of the delivery costs as defined above.
The goal of the first tier is to provide for basic indoor water use; the second tier to provide for outdoor
irrigation; and the third tier for excessive use or to encourage conservation. This is consistent with State
laws regarding the highest and most efficient use of water. With these defined tiers and budget-based
allotments,these variable costs (Max Day and Max Hour) and then further apportioned between the three
defined tiers.Similar to how costs may be apportioned to different groups of customers per the Pajaro
Case to show proportionality,maximum day and maximum hour costs were apportioned between tiers
based on the unique usage characteristics of customers within each tier.As part of our consumption
analysis, RFC analyzed the water usage of each and every account for a 12 -month period and grouped
customers each month based on which tier they fall within (“Tiered Customer Class”). Doing so allowed
us to group “like customers” together based on water usage and allocate cost proportionately to each tier
and therefore each corresponding Tiered-Customer Class. As such, the cost allocated to each tier is
directly related to the demand of the corresponding accounts that fall within each tier, similar to how
costs could be apportioned between different customer types.
As part of allocating costs between each tier, usage as well as the peaking characteristics of each Tiered
Customer Class was utilized, where Tier 1 is the baseline with a Peak of 1.0.Peaking factors for Tiers 2
and 3 were then calculated by taking the average usage of per customer within these tiers compared to
the full allotment of Tier 1 equal to 10 HCF.A percentage share of costs was allocated based upon tiered
usage,weighted by the corresponding peak factor.
24 |East Valley Water District
Table 4-12:Peaking by Tier [1]
Tier
Average
Monthly
Res. Accounts
Average
Usage
Peak
Factor
Tier 1 11,095 10 1.00
Tier 2 7,065 14.3 1.43
Tier 3 11,043 24.9 2.49
[1] Residential tiered allotments have been determined on an account level basis and provides a
substantial number of data points to determine the average usage per tier for indoor, outdoor,
and excessive use above total water budget (T1 + T2).
Table 4-13 illustrates FY 2015-16 peak costs allocated between tiers.Note the respective unit costs
derived from this analysis become the tier demand values in the variable rate component in Table 4-16.
Table 4-13: Allocation of Tier Demand Costs
Tier
Demand
Costs
Allocation of Tier Demand Costs
Description Max Day/
Max Hour Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Residential Consumption 2,872,276 1,295,606 1,220,431
Irrigation Consumption -369,856 235,212
Non-Residential Consumption 730,860 80,632 -100.00%
Peaking Factor by Tier 1.00 1.43 2.49
Weighted Peak Factor 3,603,136 2,496,575 3,630,303
Peak % Share 37%26%37%
Allocation to Tiers $2,732,460 $1,011,861 $701,108 $1,019,491
Unit Cost $0.29 $0.41 $0.71
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |25
4.4.2.4 Conservation Costs
Identical to the allocation of tier demand costs, conservation costs are allocated by the percentage share
of peak using the same peaking factors as in 4.4.2.2. However, conservation costs are only allocated to
units of water demanded in tiers 2 and 3, where water consumption is considered discretionary,
inefficient and/or excessive and for which conservation programs are designed to assist. Allocation of
conservation costs to the upper tiers provides a strong price signal for conservation and efficient use,
consistent with District and State of California policy objectives. Note the unit costs derived constitute the
variable rate component, in the respective tiers, in Table 4-16.
Table 4-14: Allocation of Tier Conservation Costs
Conservation
Costs Allocation of Tier Demand Costs
Description Conservation Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Residential Consumption -1,295,606 1,220,431
Irrigation Consumption -369,856 235,212
Non-Residential Consumption -80,632 -100.00%
Peaking Factor by Tier -1.43 2.49
Weighted Peak Factor -2,496,575 3,630,303
Peak % Share N/A 41%59%
Allocation to Tiers $1,825,000 -$743,649 $1,081,351
Unit Cost -$0.43 $0.75
4.4.2.5 Proposed Variable Rates
Table 4-15 displays the different variable rate components and which are included in specific tiers. Note,
for example, every tier pays for groundwater replenishment, delivery and the pro rata share of base costs
because all tiers benefit from local groundwater, delivery of every unit of water and base costs of
providing water. At the same time, demand in higher tiers force the District to obtain more expenses
sources of water so those costs, and the costs for conservation programs, reflect the rela tive financial
burden of high consumption.
26 |East Valley Water District
Table 4-15: Variable Cost Components
Table 4-16 displays the calculation of variable (commodity) rates, by tier. The total is a blended rate which
is the sum of tier demand, conservation, delivery, groundwater replenishment and the proportional share
of water supplies (groundwater, surface water and/or imported water)
Table 4-16:Variable (Commodity) Rates by Tier
Ground-
Water
Surface
Water
Imported
Water
GW
Replenish.Delivery Conservation Tier
Demand Total
$0.49 $0.12 $0.55 $0.29 $1.45
$0.49 $0.70 $0.12 $0.55 $0.43 $0.41 $2.07 [1]
$0.70 $0.85 $0.12 $0.55 $0.75 $0.71 $2.89 [2]
1 The rate includes a blended rate of water supplies (~ 28%-SW / 72%-IW split) plus the sum of
Replenishment, Delivery, Conservation and Tier Demand. Therefore the rate will not equal the sum.
2 The rate includes a blended rate of water supplies (~ 15%-SW / 85%-IW split) plus the sum of
Replenishment, Delivery, Conservation and Tier Demand. Therefore the rate will not equal the sum.
Table 4-17 shows three years of proposed rates by customer class. Note all classes have the same rate at
each tier. Also note that irrigation users do not have a tier 1 rate as previously discussed.
Tier Ground
Water
Surface
Water
Imported
Water
GW
Recharge Delivery Conservation
Tier
Demand
(Tier 1 =Base)
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |27
Table 4-17:Proposed Three-Year Commodity Rates, by Tier
Residential FYE 2016 FYE 2017 FYE 2018
Tier 1 1.45 1.63 1.83
Tier 2 2.07 2.32 2.61
Tier 3 2.89 3.24 3.64
Irrigation
Tier 1 ---
Tier 2 2.07 2.32 2.61
Tier 3 2.89 3.24 3.64
Non-Residential
Tier 1 1.45 1.63 1.83
Tier 2 2.07 2.32 2.61
Tier 3 2.89 3.24 3.64
4.5 Customer Impacts
Bill distribution and customer impact analyses reflect the District’s policies in terms of promoting the
meeting of SB x7-7 targets and the principle of affordability for essential use.Figures 4-2 through 4-4 show
the relative bill impact, by rate class of the new rates and rate structure.
To illustrate current overall efficiency of the District’s customers, Figures 4 -5 through 4-10 show the
proportion of residential class customer bills that fall within discrete ranges of their proposed total water
budget allocation (IWB+OWB); and the bill impacts, by customer class, inclusive of the proposed revenue
adjustments (Proposed Financial Plan).For example,Table 4-5,24% of all SFR bills are generated for
accounts that use 0-50% of their total water budget. Additionally, 58% of all account bills fall within
individual total water budgets (i.e. less than or equal to 100% of total water budget).
28 |East Valley Water District
Figure 4-2:Residential Bill Impacts
Figure 4-3:Non-Residential Bill Impacts
Figure 4-4:Irrigation Bill Impacts
Water Rate Cost of Service Study Report |29
Figure 4-5:SFR Percentage of Total Water Budget
Figure 4-6:SFR Bill Impacts
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |30
Figure 4-7:MFR Percentage of Total Water Budget
Figure 4-8:MFR Bill Impacts
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |31
Figure 4-9:Apartments Percentage of Total Water Budget
Figure 4-10:Apartments Bill Impacts
32 |East Valley Water District
Appendix A –Current Position Pro-Forma
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
Budgeted Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Revenues under Existing Rates $19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776
Revenue Adjustments $0 $0 $0 $0
Other Revenues $460,000 $460,100 $460,201 $460,303
Total Operating Revenues $19,901,776 $19,901,876 $19,901,977 $19,902,079
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
Operating Expenditures
Source of Supply $3,509,200 $3,642,502 $3,769,211 $3,882,481
Pumps & Boosters $945,217 $996,019 $1,047,594 $1,096,263
Treatment $1,380,581 $1,443,239 $1,504,186 $1,555,062
Transmission & Distribution $2,069,583 $2,207,909 $2,334,183 $2,411,205
Customer Service $924,546 $982,109 $1,034,442 $1,066,862
Administration $5,201,060 $5,539,864 $5,848,443 $6,045,461
Total Operating Expenditures $14,030,186 $14,811,642 $15,538,059 $16,057,333
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Non-Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $4,998,725 $4,974,910
Proposed New Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Non-Operating Expenditures $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $4,998,725 $4,974,910
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Net Revenue $2,297,521 $1,115,168 ($634,807)($1,130,165)
Reserves
Beginning Balance (Total Reserves)$3,500,000 $5,737,521 $3,510,829 ($2,019,913)
Operating Reserve Ending Balance $3,507,547 $3,702,910 $3,068,103 $1,937,938
Capital R&R Reserve Ending Balance $2,229,974 ($192,081)($5,088,016)($10,380,898)
Emergency Reserve Ending Balance $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Balance (Total Reserves)$5,737,521 $3,510,829 ($2,019,913)($8,442,960)
CIP Expenditures $60,000 $3,341,859 $4,895,934 $5,292,882
Gross Revenues $19,901,776 $19,901,876 $19,901,977 $19,902,079
Operating Expenditures $14,030,186 $14,811,642 $15,538,059 $16,057,333
Net Revenues for Debt Coverage Calculation $5,871,590 $5,090,234 $4,363,917 $3,844,745
Debt Service $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $4,998,725 $4,974,910
Debt Coverage 188%145%96%85%
Net Revenue after Debt Service $2,297,521 $1,115,168 ($634,807)($1,130,165)
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |33
Appendix B –Proposed Financial Plan Pro-Forma
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018
Budgeted Projected Projected Projected
Revenues
Revenues under Existing Rates $19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776 $19,441,776
Revenue Adjustments $0 $1,944,178 $4,082,773 $5,729,491
Other Revenues $460,000 $460,100 $460,201 $460,303
Total Operating Revenues $19,901,776 $21,846,053 $23,984,750 $25,631,570
FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE
Operating Expenditures
Source of Supply $3,509,200 $3,642,502 $3,769,211 $3,882,481
Pumps & Boosters $945,217 $996,019 $1,047,594 $1,096,263
Treatment $1,380,581 $1,443,239 $1,504,186 $1,555,062
Transmission & Distribution $2,069,583 $2,207,909 $2,334,183 $2,411,205
Customer Service $924,546 $982,109 $1,034,442 $1,066,862
Administration $5,201,060 $5,539,864 $5,848,443 $6,045,461
Total Operating Expenditures $14,030,186 $14,811,642 $15,538,059 $16,057,333
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Non-Operating Expenditures
Debt Service
Existing Debt Service $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $4,998,725 $4,974,910
Proposed New Debt Service $0 $0 $517,455 $517,455
Total Non-Operating Expenditures $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $5,516,179 $5,492,365
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
Net Revenue $2,297,521 $3,059,345 $2,930,511 $4,081,872
Reserves
Beginning Balance (Total Reserves)$3,500,000 $5,737,521 $8,796,866 $10,489,583
Operating Reserve Ending Balance $3,507,547 $3,702,910 $3,884,515 $4,014,333
Capital R&R Reserve Ending Balance $2,229,974 $6,746,730 $4,599,702 $3,088,589
Emergency Reserve Ending Balance $0 $2,005,366 $2,005,366 $2,175,650
Ending Balance (Total Reserves)$5,737,521 $12,455,007 $10,489,583 $9,278,573
CIP Expenditures $60,000 $3,341,859 $4,895,934 $5,292,882
Gross Revenues $19,901,776 $21,846,053 $23,984,750 $25,631,570
Operating Expenditures $14,030,186 $14,811,642 $15,538,059 $16,057,333
Net Revenues for Debt Coverage Calculation $5,871,590 $7,034,412 $8,446,690 $9,574,236
Debt Service $3,574,069 $3,975,066 $4,998,725 $4,974,910
Debt Coverage 188%200%167%190%
Net Revenue after Debt Service $2,297,521 $3,059,345 $2,930,511 $4,081,872
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |34
Appendix C –Private Fire Protection AllocationFire protection associated costs include a portion Max Day,Max Hour,Capital, and a small portion ofCapacity.Eighteen percent (18%)of Max Day,Max Hour, and Capital was allocated to fire Protectionbased on the weighted average demand of fire needs with the District ’s service area during thehighest period of demand (peak hour =7,600 gallons per minute(GPM)).During Peak Hour,theweighted average fire demand would require an additional 1,620 GPM, representing 18% of TotalDemand.In addition,a portion of capacity costs were also allocated to fire protection, generating atotal allocation of $2,297,455 of revenue requirements for Fiscal Year 2015 -16.This cost was thenallocated between Public Hydrant and Private Fire Lines based on the total Fire Flow DemandEquivalenciesthrough the use of the Fire Flow Demand Factor, equal to the size of the connection tothe power of 2.63.The result provides total fire equivalencies between Public Hydrants and PrivateFire Lines, which is then used to proportionately allocate Fire Protection Costs.The fire protectioncostallocatedto Public Hydrants is then apportioned to all potable meters based on Meter Size (Table4-6)and the fire protection cost allocated to Private Fire Lines are apportioned among private firelines based on the size of the line.
Connection Size DemandFactor(^2.63)Unit Counts FireEquivalentConenctions PercentAllocation Fire ProtectionCostsFYE 2015 Cost $2,297,455Public Hydrants 89.30%$2,051,6181"1.00 8 82"6.19 78 4834"38.32 488 18,7006"111.31 2383 265,25412"689.04 3 2,067
286,512
Private Fire Lines 10.70%$245,836
1"1.00 1,050 1,050
1 1/2"2.90 1 3
2"6.19 0 -
3"17.98 0 -
4"38.32 48 1,839
6"111.31 138 15,361
8"237.21 48 11,386
10"426.58 11 4,692
Total 1,296 34,331 100.00%$2,297,455
Max Hour Demand and Fire Flow (GPM)GPM %
Max Hour 7,600 82%
Max Fire Flow Requirement 1,620 18%
Total 9,220 100%
From EVWD Master Plan: 1500 GPM for SFR, 2500 GPM for MFR, 3000 Commercial & Public, 1500 agricultural, 4000 Industrial
Customer Classes # of Accounts Fire Flow Req
Weighted Avg
FFR
SFR 19,508 1,500 1,398.42
MFR 161 2,500 19.24
Apartment 521 2,500 62.25
Non-Residential 735 4,000 140.50
20,925 1,620.41
Connection Size
Demand
Factor
(^2.63)
Unit Counts
Fire
Equivalent
Conenctions
Percent
Allocation
Fire Protection
Costs
FYE 2015 Cost $2,297,455
Public Hydrants 89.30%$2,051,618
1"1.00 8 8
2"6.19 78 483
4"38.32 488 18,700
6"111.31 2383 265,254
12"689.04 3 2,067
286,512
Private Fire Lines 10.70%$245,836
1"1.00 1,050 1,050
1 1/2"2.90 1 3
2"6.19 0 -
3"17.98 0 -
4"38.32 48 1,839
6"111.31 138 15,361
8"237.21 48 11,386
10"426.58 11 4,692
Total 1,296 34,331 100.00%$2,297,455
Max Hour Demand and Fire Flow (GPM)GPM %
Max Hour 7,600 82%
Max Fire Flow Requirement 1,620 18%
Total 9,220 100%
From EVWD Master Plan: 1500 GPM for SFR, 2500 GPM for MFR, 3000 Commercial & Public, 1500 agricultural, 4000 Industrial
Customer Classes # of Accounts Fire Flow Req
Weighted Avg
FFR
SFR 19,508 1,500 1,398.42
MFR 161 2,500 19.24
Apartment 521 2,500 62.25
Non-Residential 735 4,000 140.50
20,925 1,620.41
Water and Wastewater Financial Plan Study Report |35
Appendix C –Private Fire Protection Allocation (cont.)
Connection Size
Demand
Factor
(^2.63)
Unit Counts
Fire
Equivalent
Conenctions
Percent
Allocation
Fire Protection
Costs
FYE 2015 Cost $2,297,455
Public Hydrants 89.30%$2,051,618
1"1.00 8 8
2"6.19 78 483
4"38.32 488 18,700
6"111.31 2383 265,254
12"689.04 3 2,067
286,512
Private Fire Lines 10.70%$245,836
1"1.00 1,050 1,050
1 1/2"2.90 1 3
2"6.19 0 -
3"17.98 0 -
4"38.32 48 1,839
6"111.31 138 15,361
8"237.21 48 11,386
10"426.58 11 4,692
Total 1,296 34,331 100.00%$2,297,455
Max Hour Demand and Fire Flow (GPM)GPM %
Max Hour 7,600 82%
Max Fire Flow Requirement 1,620 18%
Total 9,220 100%
From EVWD Master Plan: 1500 GPM for SFR, 2500 GPM for MFR, 3000 Commercial & Public, 1500 agricultural, 4000 Industrial
Customer Classes # of Accounts Fire Flow Req
Weighted Avg
FFR
SFR 19,508 1,500 1,398.42
MFR 161 2,500 19.24
Apartment 521 2,500 62.25
Non-Residential 735 4,000 140.50
20,925 1,620.41