April 14, 2015
Board of Directors
East Orange County Water District
185 N. McPherson Road
Orange, California 92869
Dear Members of the Board,
Please be advised that a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the
East Orange County Water District will be held on Thursday, April 16, 2015, at
5:00 p.m. in the offices of the East Orange County Water District, 185 N.
McPherson Road, Orange, California. Enclosed please find the agenda for the
meeting.
Very truly yours,
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT
By:
JCA/
Enclosures
cc:
150473 .15
Mailing List
Joan C. Arneson
Secretary
04-16-15
AGENDA
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
(EOCWD)
Thursday,
April 16, 2015
5:00 p.m.
1.
Call Meeting to Order and Pledge of Allegiance – President VanderWerff
2.
Public Communications to the Board
3.
Addition of Items Arising After Posting of Agenda Requiring Immediate Action
(Requires 2/3 vote or unanimous vote if less than 2/3 of members are present)
Recommended Motion: “THAT IT BE DETERMINED THAT THE NEED TO TAKE
IMMEDIATE ACTION ON [SPECIFY ITEM(S)] CAME TO THE DISTRICT’S ATTENTION AFTER
POSTING OF THE AGENDA AND THAT SUCH ITEM(S) BE ADDED TO THE AGENDA”
4.
General Manager’s Report (Exhibit “A”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT BE RECEIVED AND
FILED”
5.
Approval of Minutes of March 19, 2015 Meeting (Exhibit “B”)
6.
Operation, Management and Construction Matters
A.
Finding of water shortage, declaration of water shortage phase and related actions
(Exhibit “C”)
Recommended Motion: THAT RESOLUTION NO. ___ BE ADOPTED, ENTITLED:
“RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT DECLARING WATER CONSERVATION PHASE II TO BE IN EFFECT AND
AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION;” THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO RETAIN
“ZANJERO” SERVICES THROUGH A PART-TIME EMPLOYEE POSITION OR SHARED
SERVICES ARRANGEMENT AT A COST NOT-TO-EXCEED $15,000; AND THAT THE
EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CONTRACT WITH COMMUNICATIONSLAB
BE AUTHORIZED, PROVIDING FOR TARGETED DROUGHT COMMUNICATIONS
ASSISTANCE FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD AT A COST NOT-TO-EXCEED $30,000
(Next available Resolution No: 752)
04-16-15
B.
Rate study consultant services (Exhibit “D”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT A CONTRACT BE AWARDED TO RAFTELIS
FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $35,000 TO
PERFORM A WATER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES STUDY”
C.
Revisions to Sewer Transfer Plan of Service (Exhibit “E”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE GENERAL MANAGER BE DIRECTED TO MAKE
REVISIONS AS NEEDED TO UPDATE THE SEWER TRANSFER PLAN OF SERVICE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MOST CURRENT TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND
SUBMIT SUCH REVISED PLAN TO LAFCO, AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE
LOCAL SEWER FACILITIES TRANSFER AGREEMENT”
D.
Change in meter charge designation (Exhibit “F”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE METER CHARGES SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS
PRESENTED”
7.
Financial Matters
A.
Approval of schedules of disbursements (Exhibit “G”)
B.
Report on investments/ ratification of investment activity (Exhibit “H”)
C.
Receipt and filing of financial statements (February 28) – (Exhibit “I”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE SCHEDULES OF DISBURSEMENTS BE APPROVED AS
SUBMITTED, THAT THE SCHEDULES OF INVESTMENTS BE RATIFIED AND APPROVED,
AND THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BE RECEIVED AND FILED”
D.
Engagement of auditor (Exhibit “J”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE PUN GROUP FOR
AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2015-17, AT A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $37,500 ($12,500 PER YEAR) BE APPROVED”
8.
Miscellaneous Matters
A.
Reports from committees and representatives to organizations
B.
Directors’ reports on meetings attended
C.
Authorization of conference attendance (Exhibit “K”)
00182927 –
-2-
04-16-15
D.
Local sewer service transfer (Orange County San #7 reorganization) - status report
(Exhibit “L”)
E.
Wholesale and retail water usage report (Exhibit “M”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE WHOLESALE AND RETAIL WATER USAGE REPORT
BE RECEIVED AND FILED”
F.
Drought response report (Exhibit “N”)
Recommended Motion: “THAT THE DROUGHT RESPONSE REPORT BE RECEIVED AND
FILED”
9.
Informational Items
A.
10.
General interest publications (Exhibit “1”)
Adjournment
The scheduled date of the next Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors is May 21, 2015, at
5:00 p.m., in the offices of the East Orange County Water District, 185 N. McPherson Road,
Orange, California
************
Availability of agenda materials: Agenda exhibits and other writings that are disclosable public
records distributed to all or a majority of the members of the East Orange County Water District
Board of Directors in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open
meeting of the Board are available for public inspection in the District’s office, 185 N. McPherson
Road, Orange, California (“District Office”). If such writings are distributed to members of the Board
less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, they will be available at the reception desk of the District
Office during business hours at the same time as they are distributed to the Board members, except
that if such writings are distributed less than one hour prior to, or during, the meeting, they will be
available in the meeting room of the District Office.
Disability-related accommodations: The East Orange County Water District Board of Directors
meeting room is wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability-related accommodations
(e.g., access to an amplified sound system, etc.) please contact Sylvia Prado in the District Office at
(714) 538-5815 during business hours at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
This agenda can be obtained in alternative format upon written request to Sylvia Prado in the
District Office, at least seventy-two (72) hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
00182927 –
-3-
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
April 2015
The following report is a summary of the District’s activities over the past month.
GENERAL MATTERS
Reviewed correspondence, conferred with customers regarding billing issues and vendors/other
interested parties regarding business with the District, and met with staff members regarding daily
activities and on-going projects.
SEWER
A. OCSD Transfer
See Agenda Item
WHOLESALE ZONE
A. Peters Canyon (6 MG) Reservoir Status Update
Security System – Staff met with the AT&T contractor on April 8th to review access and hours of work
during the construction of the fiber-optic conduit from Jamboree Road up to the District’s
6 MG
reservoir site. The contractor will begin boring April 13th and expects to be completed with the
installation of the conduit by the end of April. A separate contractor will install the fiber optic cable
once this work is completed. Once the fiber-optic cable is in place, staff will coordinate with Unified
Physical Security to make the final connections and to bring the security system online.
Reservoir Inspection – As part of the Master Plan condition assessment, Carollo Engineering
inspected the interior of the 6 MG reservoir on April 9th. Carollo will be providing a options for
rehabilitation or replacement of the 6 MG reservoir and roof.
B. Master Plans and Treatment Plant Feasibility Study Update
1. Master Plan Status:
a) Non-destructive testing of selected pipes has been deferred due to the high cost of the
bids received (~$100,000) and/or that the low cost proposal doesn’t gauge well the
condition of the bulk of the majority of the pipe we have (asbestos cement).
b) Water demands and scenarios for modeling work have been completed. ID Modeling has
been given notice to proceed with modeling studies.
c) Discussions and development of scope for corrosion testing continued with V&A
Consulting Engineering. Upcoming work will be to finalize corrosion studies scope for
V&A and begin the corrosion studies.
1
d) Other work upcoming includes developing cost estimates for the Capital Improvement
Program for the “hot spots” projects, develop cost estimate for repairs to Peters Canyon
Reservoir roof
2. Feasibility Study:
a) Process evaluation and selection was presented to the Engineering Committee on March
2nd; and to the Board on March 19th. The Board approved proceeding with Conceptual
Design of the conventional treatment train.
b) Next work: continue with preparation of Conceptual Design.
c) The schedule for the treatment plant was updated; completion is scheduled for
September, 2015.
C. WZ Connection Permits
None to Report
RETAIL ZONE
1) Well / Booster Station Operations
East Well – No issues to report. 100% of the Retail Zone demand is being met by this well.
OCWD Coastal Pumping Transfer Program (CPTP) Participation – Beginning in May 2014, the RZ
has been participating in the CPTP, a program that has coastal producers pumping below the Basin
Production Percentage (70% of their demand) and some inland producers pumping above the BPP
so that the net basin pumping is neutral. The CPTP is designed to reduce water losses to LA County
as well as the gradient that encourages seawater intrusion. MET has been storing 44,000 AF of
water in the Orange County Groundwater Basin and now wants to use it – this means that additional
pumping will be required by other inland pumpers over and above the 70%, because the agencies
that have been participating in the CPTP can’t meet the additional demand. The RZ participation
means that we will pay $115/AF less for MET water due to incentives from OCWD and the mitigation
value that additional pumping will have on the MET Ready-to-Serve Charge.
West Well and Stoller Booster Pump Repair Project – The West Well and booster station have been
offline since February 2013 due to worn pump assemblies; the East Well can and has been meeting
our entire RZ demand.
As mentioned in the previous months’ General Manager’s reports, staff has delayed sending out
RFPs for the West Well and Stoller booster pump repair over concerns with the declining water levels
in the groundwater basin and the fact that well companies are very busy at this time. Well water
levels have been recovering over the last month from 290 to 280 feet (below ground surface).
2) Water Smart Home Certification Program
MWDOC is asking all member agencies to continue promoting the program in an effort to increase
participation, particularly in light of Governor Brown’s emergency water reduction executive order.
2
The District has 20 customers participating in this MWDOC sponsored program; this is unchanged
from November 2014. The customers apply online to have a home inspection performed by the
Mission Conservation District (MCD). The customers, located on Circula Panorama, Crawford
Canyon Road, Miriam Place, Panorama View, Via Aventura, Via Del Cerro, Barrett Lane, El Roy
Drive, View Ridge, St. Jude, Daniger Road, Greenwald Lane, Carmel Way and Kassy Drive met
with District and MCD representatives between November 2013 and July 2014 to go through each
interior and exterior plumbing fixture and evaluate their water efficiency.
Eighteen customers have received a water use report with recommendations on how to make
their home water efficient. In order to achieve a Water Smart Home certification, the customer
must have an efficiency score of 100. The high possible score is 120 which will give the home
Gold certification status. The scores so far have ranged between 40 and 71 points. The
customer then has 90 days to implement the recommendations and provide proof to MWDOC by
providing invoices, receipts, and photographs. If all program criteria are met, the homeowner will
receive a certificate stating that their home has been certified as being water efficient.
3) System Leaks
On Thursday, April 2, staff responded to a reported leak on Martin Lane. Staff potholed and found
that there was a leak on the 8” x 4” mainline reducer fitting. A 4’ portion of main was removed
and replaced with a section of new pipe and a new reducer fitting. It appeared roots were the
cause of the leak as there was a large cluster which had pushed the pipe fitting off one end of the
pipe.
Anecdotally, we have noticed a substantial increase in system leaks since the beginning of
August when the increased drought awareness and public outreach began; this appears
consistent with what other agencies are experiencing also. As realized during the 2009-2011
drought, system use patterns may be changing (watering on one day per week during the same
time of the day as neighbors) and it may be stressing the system. We are noting this information
for the condition assessment/hydraulic element of the Master Plan Study, so that the engineers
can assess the long-term impacts on the system and suggest operational changes and/or
effective capital improvements to mitigate these impacts.
4) Water Availability Request
None to report.
Joint System (WZ & RZ) Activities
A. Drought Report
Please see related agenda item; this item will be included as a standing report until the drought
emergency regulations are rescinded.
B. Monthly Operations Activities
•
•
•
•
•
Repaired mainline leak on Martin Lane
Completed backfill and clean up on customer property for isolation valve project.
Hired contract for tree pruning and landscape clearing at various sites.
Hired contractor for asphalt work at McPherson Yard.
Completed flushing of 31 dead-end hydrants.
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Job shadowed OCSD staff in area 7 (Superintendent).
Set up and coordinated interior inspection of 6 MG reservoir with Carollo Engineering.
Attended job walk with AT&T for Fiber line at 6 MG reservoir (Superintendent).
Weed Abatement at the 6MG, 11.5 MG, 1 MG, and Barrett reservoir sites.
Perform Vehicle and equipment maintenance
Cleanup and organize shop
Arrange haul off of spoils from Yard and Newport reservoir sites.
Tested backup generators and emergency pumps at Daniger and Vista Panorama Sidehill.
Met with IRWD contractor on Jamboree to review work and deliver meter and ups system.
Final Reads – St. Thomas Drive(1), Crawford Canyon Rd. (1).
High Water Bills – Vista Panorama (1).
Customer Leaks – Greenwald Lane (1), Mittman Lane (1), Barrett Lane (1).
Low Pressure – Baja Panorama (1).
High Pressure – Carmel Way (1).
Completed Annual Reports and submitted to SWRCB for the Retail and Wholesale Systems.
Submitted data for 2014 Consumer Confidence report to MWDOC consultant.
Reviewed new SEDARU reports and how to create custom reports.
Weekly Tasks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attend weekly safety meetings (All field staff)
Performed weekly water quality sampling
Measure static and pumping water levels in wells.
Performed USA locations
Responded to utility requests from the County and city of Orange
Picked up water quality supplies and changed reagent bottles
Clean-up, organize and restock service trucks
Clean-up and organized shop
Vehicle maintenance
Monthly Tasks
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Attend monthly staff meeting with General Manager (all employees)
Attend committee meetings – Operations and Engineering (Superintendent)
Prepared monthly CDPH water quality reports
Prepared monthly CRWQCB report for well discharge
Report retail water system production to State
Performed dead-end flushing
Read WZ meters
Check WZ meter data; assist with preparation of WZ Billing
Delivered Board agenda packages
Participated in WEROC radio test
4
3-19-15
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
March 19, 2015
1.
Call to Order. A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the East Orange County
Water District was called to order by WILLIAM VANDERWERFF, President of the Board of
Directors, at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 19, 2015, in the offices of the East Orange County
Water District, 185 N. McPherson Road, Orange, California. JOAN ARNESON, Secretary,
recorded the minutes of the meeting.
The following Directors were present: RICHARD BELL, DOUGLASS DAVERT, JOHN
DULEBOHN and WILLIAM VANDERWERFF. Also present were:
LISA OHLUND
JOAN ARNESON
WILLIAM EVEREST
ART VALENZUELA
SYLVIA PRADO
GRAHAM JUBY
General Manager
District Secretary and Legal Counsel
Consultant
City of Tustin
District Administrative Assistant
Carollo Engineers
2.
Public Communications to the Board. ART VALENZUELA was recognized, and said
that while very supportive of the evaluation of a treatment plant, it is important to focus on
who the plant’s end users will be, to be certain there will be sufficient subscribers of the
capacity.
3.
Items Arising After Posting of Agenda. None.
4.
General Manager’s Report. Ms. OHLUND said she did not have anything to add to the
written report. There were no comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
General Manager’s Report was received and filed.
5.
Minutes.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
minutes of the meeting of February 19, 2015 were approved as submitted.
00182946 08
-1-
3-19-15
6.
Operation, Management and Construction Matters.
A.
Strategic Planning. It was the consensus that April 11 be selected as the date for
a workshop discussion on the strategic planning initiative.
B.
Peters Canyon Treatment Plant Feasibility Study. Ms. OHLUND said this study
was being conducted by Carollo Engineers, and that an important decision on the direction of
the study was proposed this evening. GRAHAM JUBY made a slide presentation on the basis
of design and the screening and ranking of treatment trains, and said the recommendation was
that the conventional train be selected for further analysis.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
recommended conventional treatment process was selected as the preferred treatment
approach for the next phases of Carollo Engineers’ Peters Canyon Treatment Plant feasibility
study.
7.
Financial Matters.
A.
Schedule of Disbursements. Schedules of disbursements in the following
amounts were presented: $372,654.86 from Wholesale and Retail Operating Funds, $2,045.60
for directors’ payroll, and $38,464.76 for employees’ payroll.
B.
Investment Activity. Schedules of investments were presented.
C.
Financial Statements (January 31). The financial statements were presented.
On behalf of the Finance Committee, Director DULEBOHN recommended approval of the
schedule of disbursements and investment schedules, and receipt and filing of the financial
statements.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
schedules of disbursements were approved as submitted, the schedules of investments were
ratified and approved, and the financial statements were received and filed.
8.
Miscellaneous Matters.
A.
Reports from Committees and Representatives to Organizations. None.
B.
Directors’ Reports on Meetings Attended. None.
00182946 08
-2-
3-19-15
C.
Authorization of Conference Attendance. Ms. OHLUND said she planned to
attend the ACWA Spring conference. None of the Directors requested authorization to
attend.
D.
Orange County Sanitation District #7 Local Sewer Service Reorganization –
Status Report. Ms. OHLUND said she had nothing to add to the report.
E.
Water Demand Status Report. Ms. OHLUND reported on the State Water
Resources Control Board’s March 17 action to extend and augment its July, 2014 emergency
conservation regulations. She said a primary focus will be on enforcement.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
Water Demand Status Report was received and filed.
F.
Drought Response Report. Ms. OHLUND reported that MWD is expected to
consider an allocation, and that staff will be bringing recommended actions to the Board.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
Drought Response Report was received and filed.
9.
Informational Items.
A.
General Interest Publications. Included were LA Times op-ed – “California has
about one year of water left;” MyNewsLA.com – “Water board spends $71 million battling
drought;” San Diego Union-Tribune op-ed – “Desalination makes sense for Orange County”.
10.
Adjournment.
ACTION TAKEN:
Upon a motion duly made, seconded and carried unanimously (Everett absent), the
meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m., to Saturday, April 11, 2015, at 8:00 a.m., to be held in the
Offices of the East Orange County Water District, 185 N. McPherson Road, Orange, California.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Joan C. Arneson
00182946 08
-3-
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED REPSPONSE TO EMERGENCY WATER REDUCTION EXECUTIVE
ORDER
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
BACKGROUND
On April 1, 2015 Governor Brown signed an Executive Order that directed the State Water Resources
Control Board (State Board) to implement mandatory water reductions across California to reduce
potable urban water usage by 25 percent statewide; the savings amount to approximately 1.3 million acre
feet (MAF).
The new water reduction regulations apply to urban water suppliers (excluding wholesalers) and
includes investor-owned water utilities. They include prohibitions on irrigation of ornamental turf on
public street medians, prohibitions on new home construction that doesn’t include drip or micro-spray
systems and specific restrictions on commercial, industrial and institutional irrigation uses. The State
Board is expediting the development of these regulations and released a proposed regulatory
framework on April 7th with comments due April 13th. The District’s comments are attached to this
memo. The State Board will consider these regulations at their meeting on May 5-6.
The draft regulatory framework also includes provisions that segregate the 411 urban water suppliers into
four categories of required reduction based upon an agency’s September 2014 R-GPCD (ResidentialGallons Per Capita Per Day) – Note that 165 GPCD is considered the statewide average :
September 2014 R-GPCD
Under 55
55-110
110-165
Over 165
Conservation Required
10%
20%
25%
35%
The District’s R-GPCD for September 2014 was 271.6 putting us in the 35% reduction category.
It should be noted that the District meets the definition of a “small supplier” under the Water Code Section
10617, and during the first phase of the Emergency Regulations enacted on July 16, 2015, we asserted
this status and were told to submit reports by State Board staff. Staff intends to formally assert our small
supplier status, however, under the proposed new regulations, all small suppliers must achieve a 25%
water savings as compared to 2013. It should also be noted that the State Board will use all of the same
enforcement tools, including daily fines up to $10,000 per day, to ensure that small suppliers meet the
25% reduction mandate.
PLAN OF ACTION
Staff proposes a three-pronged approach to meeting the emergency reduction regulations:
1. Increase Conservation Ordinance phase from Level 1 (11-20% reduction) to Level 2 (21-30%
reduction) and set the Allocation Level to 75% (25% reduction).
2. Hire a P/T employee or see out a shared service with another agency, to provide “zanjero”
services.
3. Amend the Communications Lab contract to provide focused drought outreach and multi-media
support.
Board Memo: Implementation of April 1, 2015 Emergency Reduction
April 16, 2015
Staff does not currently have the resources to effectively meet the requirements of this mandate. We
currently have one full-time administrative position vacant and may soon have a vacant field position
also. The Conservation Ordinance (attached) requires extensive outreach be made informing customers
of the Board’s action to impost Conservation Level 2. Additionally, because of the real potential for fines,
extensive outreach is necessary so that customers have adequate notice and resources available to
enable their compliance.
The following table shows Conservation Level 1 compared to Conservation Level 2:
Conservation Measure
Permanent Mandatory Conservation Measures:
Limits on Watering Duration (no more than 10 minutes/valve/day (exempts drip)
No excessive water flow or runoff
New residential automated irrigation systems must be smart meters & have rain sensor
Dedicated irrigation meters must be smart meters with rain sensors
Line Breaks/leaks/malfunctions must be fixed within 3 days of notification
No hosing down of hard or paved surfaces except for sanitary or safety reasons
No hosing or washing down vehicles if no hose with positive shut-off valve
All decorative fountains and water features must be recirculating
No water from fire hydrants without a meter
Water served only upon request at restaurants
Water efficient devices required in commercial kitchens
No defrosting with water
Scoop sinks set at minimum water flow and shut-off during non-working hours
Commercial car washes and laundries must recirculate wash water
No single-pass cooling system
Recycled or non-potable water must be used at construction sites if available
No water used for soil compaction or dust control if recycled or non-potable available
No indiscriminate water use
Limits on water days – 3/week from April-October; 2 days/week from November to March
Exemptions to watering day limits for hand-watering, drip, fruit trees & vegetables
Other prohibited uses as deemed necessary by the Board
Limits on water days -2 days/week from April-October; 1 day/week from November-March
No filling or refilling of ornamental lakes and ponds (except for aquatic life exemptions)
No filling or refilling of uncovered residential pools/spas (covered pools/spas ok to 1 ft/wk)
No hosing down or washing vehicles except at a commercial car wash facility that recycles
Optional water conservation programs – residential water budget program with penalties
Commercial customer percentage reduction requirements
Level 1






















Level 2


























Staff estimates that at least a six-month part-time or shared service effort targeted at customers that are
exceeding their water budget is necessary, additionally this position would provide “zanjero” or water
overseer services to transit the district and look for water waste/leaks/malfunctions/etc. The zanjero
would also make penalty recommendations, based upon the progressive fines authorized in the
Ordinance, to the General Manager.
The public outreach requirements are many and varied and include website, graphic design and printing
requirements that are outside of staff’s ability. To meet this need, we have requested a proposal from
Communications Lab (attached). This is a “menu”-type of proposal wherein we can see what various
types of services would cost. While the proposal totals to $71,000, staff is requesting a not-to-exceed
$30,000 budget that would allow us to select the services that would provide the most value for the
2
Board Memo: Implementation of April 1, 2015 Emergency Reduction
April 16, 2015
dollars spent.
In view of the seriousness of the drought, in light of the Governor’s Executive Order for small suppliers to
reduce demand by 25% or face fines of up to $10,000/day, and in recognition that the Board of the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MET) will be considering instituting an allocation
program of at least 15% and that will include charges up to $2,960/AF for exceeding allocations, staff is
recommending the Board take the following actions:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Board:
1. Find that pursuant to the requirements of our Conservation Ordinance, a water shortage exists
and declare Water Conservation Level 2 to be in effect and authorize implementation of a 75%
allocation (25% reduction) in demand effective May 15, 2015.
2. Authorize staff to retain, via shared service or the employment of a part-time employee, dedicated
“zanjero” services to ensure compliance with the Conservation Ordinance’s Level 2 provisions for
a six-month period at a not-to-exceed cost of $15,000.
3. Authorize Amendment #2 to the Communications Lab contract for a not-to-exceed $30,000 to
provide targeted drought communications assistance for a six-month period.
3
April 13, 2015
Ms. Jessica Bean
State Water Resources Control Board
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Comments Re: April 1 2015 Emergency Conservation Executive Order
Dear Ms. Bean,
DIRECTORS
Richard B. Bell
Douglass Davert
John Dulebohn
Seymour B. Everett III
William Vanderwerff
Lisa Ohlund
General Manager
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We have carefully considered the
state’s concerns and goals as we submit the following comments:
• Take additional time to consider the unintended consequences of levying
reduction requirements in excess of 25% without considering the legal,
economic, environmental and operational consequences. Our district has spent
substantial funds developing new local supplies and funding conservation
efforts to prepare for drought and to reduce demand on the Delta; the 35%
proposed reduction not only doesn’t recognize those efforts, it prevents us
from accessing these local supplies and strands this investment.
• Address the inequities of the R-GPCD methodology. Every agency has high RGPCD users, but high rates of multi-family housing “hides” them; because of
this, only some agencies are being singled out and penalized for a high R-GPCD
– this is a patently inequitable situation.
• Ensure that per capita water use is being accurately measured. Before
implementing reductions, the state should standardize the calculation of the RGPCD metric; some agencies are reporting water sales rather than water
production (as we are); by reporting sales, they are eliminating non-revenue
water loss and lowering their R-GPCD calculation. Additionally, we are aware
that some agencies subtract out dormitories, jail/prison and senior living
centers as commercial demand, but include the residents in their population
calculation, also reducing the R-GPCD.
185 N McPherson Road
Orange, CA 92869-3720
www.eocwd.com
Ph:
Fax:
(714) 538-5815
(714) 538-0334
• Include an offset for Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) in the R-GPCD calculation.
Agencies investing in IPR should be recognized for financing an expensive
technology that reduced demand on the Delta. By not including this offset in
the calculation, the state is providing an unintended disincentive to investing
in IPR and penalizing agencies for preparing for drought
•
Use the existing 5-year base period thresholds established through
compliance with SBx7-7 requirements (20x2020); this threshold takes into
account climate variability and pre-2013 conservation achievements. Use of
gallons per capita per day using a single snapshot in time is bad science and
results in punishing customers that live in a hotter climate and who have
spent the last two decades reducing their water demand.
Ms. Jessica Bean
Comments Re: April 1, 2015 Emergency Conservation Executive Order
Page 2
April 13, 2015
•
Revise the non-compliance penalty to a per acre-foot unrealized rather than a
$10,000/day fine.
•
Consider all actions that an agency has taken to reduce overall demand when
enforcing the regulations. If fines are levied, the state should provide a mechanism
whereby all or most of the fine can be used for local conservation projects within the
agency that is being fined (similar to mandatory minimum penalty program that the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards allow for sewer spills).
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ohlund
General Manager
Cc: Rob Hunter, MWDOC
Joe Berg, MWDOC
RESOLUTION NO. ___
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DECLARING WATER CONSERVATION LEVEL 2 TO
BE IN EFFECT AND AUTHORIZING IMPLEMENTATION
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2009-1, East Orange County Water District Retail Zone, An
Ordinance To Conserve The Available Water Supply, was adopted on June 18, 2009 and
amended on August 7, 2014 (the “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance requires this Board of Directors to make findings of shortages
and to declare the applicable water conservation level for the East Orange County Water
District (“EOCWD”) Retail Zone by resolution, including, (i) if applicable, additional regulations
or rationing measures as may be determined by the Board to be necessary in response to a
water supply shortage in such level and (ii) the percentage of the required reduction in a
customer’s water use and the corresponding base period for purposes of measuring any excess
use constituting a violation subject to surcharges in such phase; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2015, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
revised and readopted its July, 2014 emergency regulations to support water conservation,
based on the Governor’s January and April 2014 proclamations finding that continuing severe
drought conditions require the reduction of water use, and the SWRCB’s finding that severe
drought conditions are continuing into 2015; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2015, the Governor issued Executive Order B-29-15, containing,
among other matters the following:
stating that California’s water supplies continue to be severely depleted;
finding that conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property continue
to exist due to water shortage and drought conditions;
requiring the SWRCB to impose restrictions to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in
potable urban water usage through February 28, 2016 and requiring water suppliers to
achieve the reductions in proportion to per capita water usage;
requiring the SWRCB to impose restrictions requiring commercial, industrial and
00177934/ 040915
institutional users to achieve the same level of reduction; and
requiring the SWRCB to direct urban water suppliers, through emergency regulations as
necessary, to develop pricing mechanisms, including, but not limited to surcharges, fees
and penalties to maximize water conservation consistent with statewide water
restrictions; and
WHEREAS, the SWRCB has issued a schedule for the adoption of additional emergency
regulations to implement the April 1, 2015 Executive Order, anticipating adoption in May, 2015;
and
WHEREAS, the SWRCB has issued proposed regulatory framework tiers for urban water
suppliers to achieve an overall 25% use reduction in proportion to suppliers’ respective per
capita per day uses; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has adopted an
allocation of its supplies, effective July 1, 2015, increasing the surcharges for over-allocation use
to up to $2,960 per acre foot, and such allocation will be implemented by Municipal Water
District of Orange County on the imported water supplies delivered to its contracting agencies
including EOCWD, subjecting EOCWD to the payment of imported water surcharges on overallocation deliveries;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the East Orange County Water District
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER as follows:
Section 1.
Based on the matters recited above in this Resolution, this Board of
Directors hereby finds that a water shortage condition exists affecting water use in the Retail
Zone of EOCWD, and declares that Water Conservation Phase 2 shall be in effect.
The start
date of Water Conservation Level 2 shall be May 15, 2015.
Section 2.
During the declared Conservation Phase, no person shall make, cause, use
or permit the use of water for any purpose in excess of seventy-five percent (75%) of their
normal (100%) indoor and outdoor water budget allocation.
Section 3.
be in effect:
00177934/ 040915
All restrictions set forth in the Ordinance for a Conservation Phase 2 shall
1) Permanent water conservation measures identified in Section VI of the Ordinance
2) Watering of lawns, landscaping and other vegetated areas is limited to no more than
two (2) days per week from April-October, and no more than one (1) day per week
from November-March.
3) Loss of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions must be fixed within two
(2) days following notification from the District.
4) Filling or refilling of ornamental lakes and ponds is prohibited with limited
exceptions.
5) Filling or refilling of uncovered residential swimming pools or uncovered outdoor
spas is prohibited.
Covered pools and spas may be refilled up to one (1) foot of
water per week. Limited exceptions to this policy are allowed.
6) No hosing or washing down of vehicles is allowed outside of commercial car washing
facilities that recycles its wash water.
Section 4.
The Board hereby authorizes and directs staff to take all actions deemed
necessary to implement and enforce the declaration, restrictions and requirements adopted in
this Resolution.
Section 5.
The Secretary is hereby directed to cause this Resolution to be published
in accordance with the Ordinance.
Pursuant to the Ordinance, this Resolution shall become
effective immediately upon such publication.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this _______ day of _______ 2015.
_____________________________________
President
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
and of the Board of Directors
thereof
_
___________________
Secretary
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
and of the Board of Directors
thereof
00177934/ 040915
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
)
) ss
I, JOAN C. ARNESON, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the EAST ORANGE COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ___ was duly adopted by
the Board of Directors of said District at a Regular Meeting of said District held on
_____________, 2015, and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Secretary
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
and of the Board of Directors
thereof
00177934/ 081214
2009
RETAIL ZONE WATER
CONSERVATION PROGRAM
ORDINANCE
June 2009
Table of Contents
Page 1 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
Proposed Water Conservation & Water Supply Shortage Ordinance
Section I.
Page
Title
3
Section II.
Findings
3
Section III.
Declaration of Purpose and Intent of Ordinance
5
Section IV.
Definitions
5
Section V.
Application of Ordinance
7
Section VI.
Permanent Water Conservation Measures
7
Section VII.
Level 1 Water Supply Shortage (Water Supply Alert)
11
Section VIII.
Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (Water Supply Warning)
12
Section IX.
Level 3 Water Supply Shortage (Water Emergency)
15
Section X.
Other Provisions
17
Section XI.
Declaration & Notification of Water Shortages & Emergencies
17
Section XII.
Hardship Waiver
18
Section XIII.
Non-Compliance Charges and Penalties
19
Section XIV.
Severability
22
Page 2 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OF THE EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ESTABLISHING A
RETAIL ZONE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
Section I. Title
East Orange County Water District Water Retail Zone Conservation Ordinance
(“Ordinance”)
Section II. Findings
1. A reliable minimum supply of water is essential to the public health, safety and
welfare of the people and economy of Southern California.
2. Southern California is a semi-arid region, largely dependent on imported water
supplies from Northern California and the Colorado River. Population growth,
drought, climate change, environmental concerns, government policy changes,
restrictions on pumping and other factors in our region, in other parts of the State
and in the western U.S. make Southern California highly-susceptible to water
supply reliability issues.
3. Careful water management requires active conservation measures not only in
times of drought but at all times. It is essential to ensure a reliable minimum
supply of water to meet current and future water supply needs.
4. California Constitution Article X, Section 2 declares for the general welfare:
a. Water resources be put to beneficial use
b. Prevention of water waste and unreasonable water use or methods of
water use
c. Full exercise of water conservation with a view to reasonable and
beneficial water use
Page 3 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
5. California Water Code Section 375 authorizes water suppliers to adopt and
enforce a comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water
consumption and conserve supplies.
6. California Water Code Section 31027 sets forth the public notification, public
meeting and public hearing requirements for water providers proposing the
establishment of a water conservation program, ordinance or resolution.
7. California Water Code Sections 350, et. seq., sets forth the determination and
notification procedures for water suppliers seeking to declare a water shortage
or a water emergency.
8. California Water Code Section 356 allows for the adoption of regulations and
restrictions that include discontinuance of service as an enforcement option
where a water shortage emergency condition has been declared.
9. California Water Code Section 377 authorizes water suppliers to enforce a
comprehensive water conservation program to reduce water consumption
through establishment of non-compliance charges and other penalties, subject
to advance notification to water users.
10. Health and Safety Code Section 5471 authorizes the District to apply charges or
fees to persons or entities that fail to comply with any provision of this Water
Conservation Ordinance in order to recover administrative and enforcement
costs due to non-compliance (including but not limited to notices, postings,
hearings, shut offs, account management, data collection).
11. California Water Code Section 370, et. seq., authorizes water suppliers to adopt
water allocation programs for water users and allocation-based conservation
water conservation pricing.
12. California Water Code Sections 13550 and 13551 declare a statewide policy that
the use of domestic water for irrigation purposes when reclaimed (recycled)
water is available constitutes a waste or unreasonable use of water within the
meaning of the State Constitution.
13. The adoption and enforcement of a Water Conservation Ordinance is necessary
to manage the District’s water supply short- and long-term and to minimize
and/or avoid the effects of drought and water shortage within the District. Such
a program is essential to ensure a reliable and sustainable minimum supply of
water for public health, safety and welfare.
14. The proposed Ordinance shall replace the District’s Ordinance No 1991-1,
adopted March 21, 1991.
Page 4 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
Section III. Declaration of Purpose and Intent
1. To minimize or avoid the effect and hardship of potential shortages of water to
the greatest extent possible, this Ordinance establishes a Water Conservation
Program for the Retail Zone designed to:
a. Reduce water consumption (demand) through conservation
b. Enable effective water supply planning
c. Assure reasonable and beneficial use of water
d. Prevent waste of water and maximize efficient use in the District
2. The Ordinance establishes:
a. Permanent water conservation standards designed to alter behaviors
related to water-use efficiency during non-shortage conditions
b. Three levels of potential response to escalating water supply shortages
which the East Orange County Water District Board may choose to
implement during times of declared water shortage or water emergency.
The three levels of response consist of increasing water use restrictions as a
result of worsening drought conditions, emergencies, and/or decreasing
supplies.
Section IV. Definitions
1. General
a. “The District” means East Orange County Water District.
b. “The Board” means the East Orange County Water District Board of
Directors.
c. “Retail Zone” means that sub-portion of the District to which the District
directly provides local and imported water supplies to residential and
commercial customers.
d. “Wholesale Zone” means that sub-portion of the District to which the
District provides imported water supplies to five retail entities: the City of
Orange, the City of Tustin, the Irvine Ranch Water District, the Golden
State Water Company and the Retail Zone of the East Orange County
Water District.
Page 5 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
e. “Person” means any person or persons, corporation, public or private
entity, governmental agency or institution, or any other user of water
provided by the District.
f.
“Water” means water that is suitable for drinking.
g. “Water Waste” refers to uses of water that are limited or prohibited under
the Ordinance because they exceed necessary or intended use and
could reasonably be prevented, such as runoff from outdoor watering.
h. “Billing Unit” is equal to 100 cubic feet (1 CCF) of water, which is 748
gallons. Water use is measured in units of 100-cubic-feet and multiplied by
applicable water usage rates for billing. Also known as a “Unit of Water.”
i.
“Undue Hardship” is a unique circumstance in which a requirement of the
Ordinance would result in a disproportionate impact on a water user or
property upon which water is used compared to the impact on water
users generally or similar properties or classes of water use.
j.
“Imported Water Supply” refers to the District’s total imported water supply
over a given period, e.g. calendar year or fiscal year , or as defined by
the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Met), or as defined
by a regulatory agency
k. “Local Water Supply” refers to the District’s total local water supply over a
designated non-drought/non-allocation period, e.g. calendar year or
fiscal year, or as defined by a regulatory agency.
l.
“Covered Pool or Covered Spa” refers to pools and/or spas that have a
cover that minimizes evaporation.
2. Irrigation
a. “Automatic Shut-Off Nozzle” refers to a water-efficient nozzle for use with
residential or commercial hoses that has a feature that must be pressed to
start the flow or releasing the feature stops the flow of water. b. “Irrigation Controller” is the part of an automated irrigation system that
instructs the valves to open and close to start or stop the flow of water.
1. “Sensor-based irrigation controller” operates based on input from a
combination of sensors (rain, solar, soil moisture) installed in or
around the landscaped area.
2. “Weather-based irrigation controller” operates automatically
based on evapo-transpiration rates and historic or real-time
weather data.
Page 6 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
c. “Irrigation System” refers to a manual or automated watering system
consisting of pipes, hoses, spray heads and/or sprinkler devices or valves.
Also known as a “Landscape Irrigation System.”
d. “Positive Shut-Off Valve” refers to a water-efficient valve for residential or
commercial hoses that users can quickly and positively start or stop the
flow of water. A ball valve would satisfy this requirement.
e. “Valves” refer to the part of an irrigation system that opens and closes
manually or electronically to start or stop the flow of water.
3. Other
a. “Pre-Rinse Kitchen Spray Valves” refer to highly water-efficient sprayers
that commercial kitchens use to rinse dishes in the sink before washing
and for other preliminary cleaning purposes.
b. “Single-Pass Cooling System” refers to an air conditioning, refrigeration or
other cooling system that removes heat by transferring it to a supply of
clean water and dumping the water down the drain – after a single use.
This type of cooling system is extremely water-inefficient compared to
systems that re-circulate the water.
Section V.
Application of Ordinance
1. Ordinance provisions apply to any person or entity using water provided by the
District. This includes individuals, persons, corporations, public or private entities,
governmental agencies or institutions, or any other users of District water.
2. The provisions of the Ordinance may not apply to the following:
a. Water use necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential
government services, such as police, fire and similar services.
b. Recycled water use for irrigation. Use of recycled water requires a permit
that has specific use restrictions, many of which focus on water efficiency.
Given such permits and the interest in promoting the use of recycled
water as a means to preserve, recycled water is exempt from all
requirements of this Ordinance.
c. Water used by commercial nurseries and growers to sustain plants, trees,
shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for commercial sale.
3. This Ordinance is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not
intended to implement any provision of federal, state or local statutes,
ordinances or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of
Page 7 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
drainage or runoff. Refer to the local jurisdiction or Regional Water Quality
Control Board for information on storm water ordinances or management plans.
Section VI: Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Measures
The following Permanent Mandatory Water Conservation Measures are in effect at all
times, whether or not there is a water supply shortage or emergency.
1. General Restrictions – Residential, Commercial and Public Customers
a. Limits on Watering Duration
1. Watering or irrigating with a device or system that is not
continuously attended is limited to no more than 10 minutes per
valve, per day.
2. This applies to lawns, landscaping and all other vegetated areas.
3. The following irrigation systems are exempt:
a. Low-flow drip-type systems that will achieve the
conservation goals of this Ordinance.
b. Systems equipped with weather-based controllers or streamrotor sprinklers that meet a 70% efficiency standard
b. No Excessive Water Flow or Runoff: It is prohibited to water lawns,
landscaping and vegetated areas in a manner that causes or allows
excessive water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway,
street, alley, gutter or ditch.
c. Automatic Rain Shut-Off for Automated Irrigation Systems
1. New residential automated irrigation systems must be equipped
with:
a. Rain sensors that shut off the system when it rains, or
b. Smart controllers or evapo-transpiration sensors that use
weather-based data to set efficient watering schedules
2. As of July 1, 2010, new and existing automated irrigation systems
connected to dedicated irrigation meters must be equipped with:
a. Rain sensors that shut off the system when it rains, or
b. Smart controllers or evapo-transpiration sensors that use
weather-based data to set efficient watering schedules
d. Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions in lines, fixtures or facilities
Page 8 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
1. Excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or
malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution system:
a. Is prohibited for any period of time after such water waste
should have reasonably been discovered and corrected
b. Must be immediately shut-off upon District notification, unless
Undue Hardship occurs
c. Must be corrected within no more than three (3) days of
District notification
e. No Hosing or Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces
1. It is prohibited to hose or wash down hard or paved surfaces, such
as sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts,
patios or alleys.
2. When it is necessary hose or wash down hard or paved surfaces to
alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, the following may be used:
a. Hand-held bucket or similar container
b. Hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off valve.
c. Low-volume high-pressure cleaning machine or “water
broom”
f.
No Hosing or Washing Down Vehicles
1. It is prohibited to use water to hose or wash down a motorized or
non-motorized vehicle, including but not limited to automobiles,
trucks, vans, buses, motorcycles, boats or trailers.
2. The following are exempt from this restriction:
a. Use of a hand-held bucket or similar container
b. Use of a hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off
valve
c. Commercial car washing facility
g. Re-Circulating Decorative Water Fountains and Features:
Effective
January 1, 2011, all decorative water fountains and water features must
re-circulate water -- or users must secure a waiver from the District.
h. Unauthorized Use of Fire Hydrants Prohibited
1. No person may use water from any fire hydrant for any purpose
other than fire suppression or emergency aid without first:
a. Requesting and posting the appropriate fees at the District.
Page 9 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
b. Obtaining a hydrant meter to record all water consumption
for a specified project. Absent a meter, water theft and
meter tampering fees will be applied as appropriate.
2. Commercial Food-Serving & Lodging Requirements
a. Water Served Only Upon Request. Eating or drinking establishments,
including but not limited to restaurants, hotels, cafes, bars or other public
places where food or drinks are sold, or served or offered for sale, are
prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless requested.
b. Option Not To Have Towels/Linens Laundered. Hotels, motels and other
commercial lodging establishments must provide guests the option of not
having their used towels and linens laundered. Lodging establishments
must prominently display notice of this option in each room and/or
bathroom, using clear and easily understood language.
3. Commercial Kitchen Requirements
a. Water-Efficient Pre-Rinse Kitchen Spray Valves.
Food preparation
establishments, such as restaurants, cafes and hotels, are prohibited from
using non-water efficient kitchen spray valves, as follows:
1. New kitchen spray valves must use 1.6 gallons or less per minute.
2. Effective January 1, 2010, existing kitchen spray valves must be
retrofitted to models using 1.6 gallons of water or less per minute.
b. Best-Available Water-Conserving Technology. All water-using equipment
in new or remodeled commercial kitchens must use the best-available,
water-conserving technology, for example, technologies cited on the
California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC) website.
c. No Defrosting With Water. Defrosting food with running water is prohibited.
d. Scoop Sinks. Scoop sinks shall be set at minimum water flow at all times of
use and shut off during non-working hours.
e. Automatic Shut-Off Nozzles. When hosing or washing kitchen or garbage
areas or other areas for sanitary reasons as required by the Health Dept.,
hoses shall be equipped with positive shut-off valve.
Page 10 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
4. Commercial Water Recirculation Requirements
a. Car Wash and Laundry System Requirements: All new commercial carwash and laundry facilities and systems must re-circulate the wash water -or secure a waiver of this requirement from the District.
b. No Single-Pass Cooling Systems: Buildings requesting new water service or
being remodeled are prohibited from installing single-pass systems.
5. Construction Site Requirements
a. Recycled or non-potable water must be used, when available.
b. No water may be used for soil compaction or dust control where there is a
reasonably-available source of recycled or non-potable water approved
by the Dept. of Public Health and appropriate for such use.
c. Water hoses shall be equipped with automatic shut-off valves, given such
devices are available for the size and type of hoses in use.
6. Indiscriminate Water Use. Upon notice by the District, persons shall cease to
cause or permit the indiscriminate use of water not otherwise prohibited above
which is wasteful and without reasonable purpose.
7. Public Health and Safety. These regulations shall not be construed to limit water
use which is immediately necessary to protect public health and/or safety.
Section VII: Level 1 Water Supply Shortage (Water Alert) 11% to 20%
shortage in imported water supplied to the District and/or 11% to 20% reduction needed in consumer
demand
1. Level 1 Water Supply Shortage
a. A Level 1 Water Supply Shortage exists when the District Board of
Directors, at its sole discretion, determines that a reduction in consumer
demand is necessary due to drought or water supply cutbacks in order to
make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing
water conditions.
b. The type of event that may prompt the Board to declare a Level 1 Water
Supply Shortage could include, among other factors, a finding that a
regional water provider has reduced allocations to the District from 11% to
20% of the District’s regular Imported and/or Local Water Supply. At this
water allocation level, the District could experience a shortage in supplies
between 11% to 20%.
Page 11 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
2. Mandatory Permanent Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VI
remain in effect.
3. Level 1 Water Conservation Measures take effect upon declaring a Level 1 Water
Supply Shortage and apply for the duration of the shortage:
a. Limits on Watering Days
1. No more than three (3) days per week from April – October and no
more than two (2) days per week from November – March. This
applies to lawns, landscaping and all other vegetated areas. The
District will establish and post the new watering schedules.
2. The following are exempt from these restrictions:
a. Watering with a hand-held bucket or similar container.
b. Watering with a hand-held hose equipped with a positive
shut-off valve.
c. Irrigation systems that exclusively use low-flow drip type
systems that will achieve the conservation goals of this
Section.
d. Fruit trees and vegetable gardens, providing steps are taken
to meet the conservation goals of this Section.
4. Other Prohibited Uses: The District may implement other prohibited water uses as
deemed necessary, after notice to customers.
Section VIII: Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (Water Supply Warning) 21% to 30%
shortage in imported water supplied to the District and/or 21%- 30% reduction needed in consumer demand
1. Level 2 Water Supply Shortage
a. A Level 2 Water Supply Shortage exists when the District Board of Directors,
at its sole discretion, determines that an additional reduction in consumer
demand is necessary due to drought or water supply cutbacks in order to
make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to water
conditions.
b. The type of event that may prompt the Board to declare a Level 2 Water
Supply Shortage could include, among other factors, a finding that a
regional water provider has reduced allocations to the District from 11% to
20% of the District’s regular Imported and/or Local Water Supply. At this
water allocation level, the District could experience a shortage in supplies
between 21% to 30%.
2. The following mandatory water conservation measures remain in effect during a
Level 2 Water Supply Shortage:
Page 12 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
a. Permanent Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VI
b. Level 1 Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VII
3. The following water conservation measures take effect upon declaration of a
Level 2 Water Supply Shortage and apply for the duration of the Shortage:
a. Additional Limits on Watering Days
1. Watering lawns, landscaping and other vegetated areas is limited
to no more than two (2) days per week from April – October. This is
one (1) day less than required during a Level 1 Water Shortage.
The number of watering days permitted from November – March
will be no more than one (1) day per week.
2. The District will establish and post the new watering schedule.
b. Shorter Timeframe to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions in water users’
pipelines, fixtures or facilities.
1. Excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or
other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution
system must be fixed in no more than two (2) days following
notification from the District – unless other arrangements are made
with the District.
2. This shorter timeframe is one (1) day less than required under
Permanent Water Conservation Measures, Section VI.
c. No Filling or Refilling Ornamental Lakes and Ponds
1. Filling or refilling ornamental lakes and ponds is prohibited.
2. Exempt are ornamental lakes and ponds that sustain aquatic life -provided such life is of significant value and was actively managed
in the water feature prior to declaring the shortage.
d. No Filling or Refilling Residential Pools or Spas
1. Filling or refilling uncovered residential swimming pools or
uncovered outdoor spas is prohibited. Refilling of covered pools
and/or outdoor spas of up to one (1) foot of water per week is
allowed.
2. Exempt are individuals who, due to health reasons or medical
conditions, find it necessary to fill or refill their pools or spas. Persons
desiring to claim such exemption shall apply for a Hardship Waiver
under the provisions contained in Section XII.
Page 13 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
e. No Hosing or Washing Down Vehicles: It is prohibited to use water to hose
or wash down a motorized or non-motorized vehicle, including but not
limited to automobiles, trucks, vans, buses, motorcycles, boats or trailers.
The only exemption from this restriction is washing vehicles at a
commercial car washing facility that recycles its wash water.
4. Other Prohibited Uses: The District may implement other prohibited water uses as
deemed necessary, following notification of customers.
5. Optional Water Conservation Programs
a. The District Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may establish Optional
Water Conservation Programs, during a Level 2 Water Supply Shortage
and/or during a Level 3 Water Shortage Emergency.
b. If any of the following Optional Water Conservation Programs is
established, public notification will precede program implementation.
c. Water Allocation or Water Budget Program
1. The District Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, may establish
water allocations or water budgets for properties served by the
District using a method that does not penalize persons for either the
implementation of the conservation method or installation of
water-saving devices and includes the User’s Base Consumption.
2. Following the effective date of a water allocation or budget
program, any person using water in excess of the allocation or
budget will be subject to a penalty as determined by the District
rate schedule.
3. The penalty for excess water use will be cumulative to any other
remedy or penalty imposed for violation of this Ordinance.
d. Increased Water Usage Rates: The District Board of Directors, at its sole
discretion, may increase water usage rates, by an amount deemed
necessary, as determined by the District’s rate schedule.
e. Percentage-Use Reduction for Commercial Customer: The District Board of
Directors, at its sole discretion, may require commercial customers to
reduce water use by a certain percentage, as determined by the District.
Page 14 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
Section IX.
Level 3 Water Shortage (Water Emergency) 31% to 40% shortage in
imported water supplied to the District and/or 31% to 40% reduction needed in consumer demand
1. Level 3 Water Supply Shortage Emergency
a. A Level 3 Water Supply Shortage exists when the District Board of Directors,
at its sole discretion, determines that a further additional reduction in
consumer demand is necessary due to drought or water supply cutbacks
in order to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to
existing water conditions.
b. The type of event that may prompt the Board to declare a Level 3 Water
Supply Shortage could include, among other factors, a finding that a
regional water provider has reduced allocations to the District from 11% to
20% of the District’s regular Imported and/or Local Water Supply. At this
water allocation level, the District could experience a shortage in supplies
of up to 40%.
2. The following mandatory water conservation measures remain in effect:
a. Permanent Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VI
b. Level 1 Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VII
c. Level 2 Water Conservation Measures identified in Section VIII
3. The following mandatory water conservation measures take effect upon
declaring a Level 3 Water Emergency and apply for the duration of the
Emergency:
a. Additional Limits on Watering Days
1. Watering lawns, landscaping and other vegetated areas is limited
to no more than one (1) days per week from April – October. This is
one (1) day less than required during a Level 2 Water Shortage.
The number of watering days permitted from November – March
remains the same at no more than one (1) day per week.
2. The District will establish and post the new watering schedule.
3. Exempt from this restriction are the following:
a. Public works projects and actively-irrigated environmental
mitigation projects
b. Maintenance of vegetation, trees and shrubs using (subject
to hour restrictions in Section VII.4.a):
1. A hand-held bucket or similar container
2. A hand-held hose equipped with a positive shut-off
valve.
Page 15 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
3. Irrigation systems that exclusively use low-flow drip
type systems that will achieve the conservation goals
of this Section.
c. Maintenance of (subject to hour restrictions, Section VIII.4.a):
1. Existing landscaping necessary for fire protection
and/or soil erosion control
2. Plant materials identified as rare or essential to the
well being of endangered/rare species
3. Fruit trees and vegetable gardens provided steps are
taken to meet the conservation goals of this Section.
b. Shorter Timeframe to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions in pipelines, fixtures
or facilities.
1. Excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or
malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution system
must be fixed in no more than one (1) day following District
notification – unless other arrangements are made with the
District. The timeframe is one (1) day less than for Level 2.
c. No New Water Service
1. During a Level 3 Water Emergency, the District will not provide:
a. New water service
b. New water meters (temporary or permanent)
c. Will-serve letters
2. The District will only issue will-serve letters in the following cases:
a. Projects necessary to protect public health, safety & welfare
b. Projects that have a valid, unexpired city or county building
permit
c. Projects in which applicants can provide -- to the
satisfaction of the District -- substantial evidence of an
enforceable commitment that water demands will be offset
prior to the provision of a new water meter(s)
3. This prohibition does not preclude resetting or turning-on meters to
restore or continue water service interrupted for one month or less.
4. Discontinue Service: Per Water Code Section 356, 1 the District, in its sole
discretion, may discontinue service to customers who willfully violate Section IX
provisions.
1
Water Code Section 356 allows for the adoption of regulations and restrictions that include discontinuance of
service as an enforcement option where a water shortage emergency condition has been declared.
Page 16 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
5. Other Prohibited Uses: The District may implement other prohibited water uses as
deemed necessary, following notification of customers
Section X. Other Provisions
1. Customer Water Conservation Plans:
a. Customers with high annual water usage. During Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3
Water Shortages or Emergencies, the District Board of Directors, at its sole
discretion and by written request, may require residential, commercial
and/or public customers using five thousand (5,000) or more billing units
per year to submit a Water Conservation Plan to the District and to submit
quarterly progress reports on such plan. The conservation plan must make
recommendations for increased water savings, including increased use of
recycled water based on feasibility. Quarterly progress reports must
include status on implementation of recommendations.
Section XI. Declaration & Notification of Water Shortages/Emergencies
1. Declaration of Level 1 & Level 2 Water Shortages: The District Board of Directors
may declare a Level 1 or Level 2 Water Shortage and adopt a water shortage
resolution at a regular or special public meeting in accordance with State law.
Thereafter, penalties and violations under Section XIII.1 shall apply.
2. Declaration of Level 3 Water Shortage Emergency: The District Board of Directors
may declare a Level 3 Water Shortage Emergency in accordance with the
procedures specified in Water Code Sections 351 and 352. Thereafter, penalties
and violations under Section XIII.2 shall apply.
3. Notification of Declared Water Shortages and Emergencies
a. The District must publish a copy of the water shortage/emergency
resolution in a newspaper used for the publication of official notices within
the jurisdiction of the District within ten (10) business days of the date that
the shortage level is declared.
b. Additional mandatory conservation requirements will take effect on the
fifteenth (15) business day after the date that the shortage level is
declared
4. Notification of Declared Water Allocation or Water Budget Program
a. If the District Board of Directors, at its sole discretion, establishes a water
allocation or water budget program during a Level 2 Water Shortage or
Level 3 Water Emergency:
Page 17 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
1. The District will provide notice of the program to customers via U.S.
mail, other mailings in which the District customarily sends billing
statements, and/or e-mail outreach and/or automated calling.
2. The program will take effect on the date of the notification mailing
or at such later date as specified in the notice.
Section XII. Hardship Waiver
1. Undue and Disproportionate Hardship: If, due to unique circumstances, a
specific requirement of the Ordinance would result in undue hardship to a
person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is
disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or
classes of water users, then the person may apply for a waiver to the
requirements as provided in this section.
2. Written Finding: The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon
a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship.
a. Application for a Waiver: Application for a waiver must be on a form
prescribed by the District and accompanied by a non-refundable
processing fee in an amount set by the District.
b. Supporting Documentation: The application must be accompanied by
photographs, maps, drawings, and other information, including a written
statement of the applicant.
c. Required Findings for Waiver: Based on the information and supporting
documents provided in the application, additional information provided
as requested, and water use information for the property as shown by the
records of the District, the District General Manager in making the waiver
determination will take into consideration the following:
1. That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses;
2. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property
or its use, the strict application of this Ordinance would have a
disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the
impacts to residents and businesses generally;
3. That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the
ability of the District to effectuate the purpose of this Ordinance
and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and
Page 18 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
4. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the
intended use of the property for which the waiver is sought is not
common, recurrent or general in nature.
d. Approval Authority
1. The District General Manager or his designee(s) must act upon any
completed Application for a Waiver no later than ten (10) business
days after receipt by the District.
2. The General Manager or his designee(s) may approve,
conditionally approve, or deny the waiver and the decision will be
final.
3. The applicant requesting the waiver must be promptly notified in
writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise, at the time
a waiver is approved, it will apply to the subject property for the
duration of the water supply shortage or emergency.
Section XIII:
Non-Compliance Charges and Penalties
1. Non-Compliance with Permanent, Level 1 & Level 2 Mandatory Conservation
a. The following will apply to persons or entities that fail to comply with any
provision of the Ordinance for Permanent, Level 1 and Level 2 mandatory
water conservation measures.
1. First Instance of Non-Compliance: The District will issue a written
warning and send it and a copy of the Ordinance by mail
2. Second Instance of Non-Compliance: A second instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance within the preceding twelve (12)
calendar months is punishable by a non-compliance charge not to
exceed fifty dollars ($50).
3.
Third Instance of Non-Compliance: A third instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance within the preceding twelve (12)
calendar months is punishable by a non-compliance charge not to
exceed one hundred dollars($100)
4. Fourth and Subsequent Instances of Non-Compliance: A fourth or
any subsequent instance of non-compliance with this Ordinance is
punishable by a non-compliance charge not to exceed two
hundred fifty dollars ($250).
Page 19 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
b. Misdemeanor: Pursuant to water Code Section 377, any instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30)
days or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both.
c. Separate Offenses: Each day that a person or entity is non-compliant with
the Ordinance is a separate offense after the initial citation is issued.
2. Non-Compliance with Level 3 Mandatory Conservation Measures
a. Non-Compliance Charges: The following will apply to persons or entities
failing to comply with any provision of the Ordinance for Level 3
mandatory water conservation measures:
1. First Instance of Non-Compliance: The District will issue a written
warning and send it and a copy of the Ordinance by mail.
2. Second Instance of Non-Compliance: A second instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance within the preceding twelve (12)
calendar months is punishable by a non-compliance charge not to
exceed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250).
3. Third Instance of Non-Compliance: A third instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance within the preceding twelve (12)
calendar months is punishable by a non-compliance charge not to
exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
b. Water Flow Restrictor and/or Termination of Service
1. Water Flow Restrictor Device. In addition to any non-compliance
charges, the District may install a water flow restrictor device. If the
District determines to install a water flow restrictor, installation of the
flow restrictor would follow written notice of intent to the customer
and would be in place for a minimum of forty eight (48) hours.
2. Termination of Service: In addition to any non-compliance charges
and the installation of a water flow restrictor, the District may
disconnect and/or terminate a customer’s water service, pursuant
to Water Code Section 356.
3. Costs for Water Flow Restrictors and Service Disconnection
a. A person or entity in non-compliance with this Ordinance is
responsible for payment of the District’s charges for installing
and/or removing any flow restricting device and for
disconnecting and/or reconnecting service per the District’s
schedule of charges then in effect.
Page 20 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
b. The charge for installing and/or removing any flow restricting
device must be paid to the District before the device is
removed.
c. Nonpayment will be subject to the same remedies as
nonpayment of basic water rate
c. Misdemeanor: Pursuant to Water Code Section 377, any instance of noncompliance with the Ordinance may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor
punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30)
days or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both.
3. Separate Offenses: Each day that a person or entity is non-compliant with the
Ordinance is a separate offense.
4. Notice of Non-Compliance/ Appeal and Hearing Process
a. The District will issue a Notice of Non-Compliance by mail or personal
delivery at least ten (10) business days before taking enforcement action.
The notice will describe the violation and the date by which corrective
action must be taken.
b. A customer may appeal the Notice of Non-Compliance by filing a written
Notice of Appeal with the District no later than the close of business on
the day before the date scheduled for enforcement action. A customer
appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal.
1. Any Notice of Non-Compliance not timely appealed will be final.
2. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the District will schedule a
hearing on the appeal and mail written notice of the hearing
date to the customer at least ten (10) business days before the
hearing.
3. The District General Manager or his designee(s) will hear the
appeal and issue a written Notification of Decision within ten (10)
days of the hearing.
c. A customer may appeal a Hearing Determination to the District Board of
Directors by written request for a hearing within ten business (10) days
after the certified date of delivery or date of first class mailing of the
Notification of Decision. The request shall state the grounds for appeal.
At a public meeting, the Board shall review the appeal and, at its sole
discretion, may affirm, reverse or modify the Hearing Determination. The
decision of the Board is final.
Page 21 of 22
EOCWD Water Conservation Ordinance No. 2009-01
d. Pending receipt of a written appeal or pending a hearing pursuant to an
appeal, the District may take appropriate steps to prevent the
unauthorized use of water given the nature and extent of the violations
and the current declared water shortage level condition, including
restricting the level of water use until the appeal is heard.
Section XIV: Severability: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase in
this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the
Ordinance will not be affected. The District Board of Directors hereby declares it would
have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses, or phrases thereof is declared invalid.
Section XV: Repeal of Ordinance No. 1991-1: Ordinance No. 1991-1 is hereby
repealed in its entirety.
Section XVI: Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its
passage. The Secretary shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be published according to law.
THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a meeting of the board of
Directors of EOCWD held on April 16, 2009, following a public hearing, notice of which
was published on April 3 and April 10, 2009.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the East Orange County
Water District at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of June, 2009.
____________________________________
William VanderWerff
President
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
and the Board of Directors
thereof
_______________________________________
Joan C. Arneson
Secretary
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
and the Board of Directors
thereof
Page 22 of 22
East Orange Water District
Draft Communications Plan
Executive Summary:
Communications LAB has been working with East Orange County Water District
(EOCWD) for several months to support the District’s application before LAFCO to
obtain the sewers in Area #7 as part of a transfer agreement from the Orange County
Sanitation District (OCSD). In addition to Communications LAB continuing to provide
strategic planning and advocacy to achieve success on this issue, the EOCWD board
indicated during its Strategic Planning Session that it would like broader
communications support to enhance the District’s role in the community and effectively
communicate its track record of success.
To accomplish that board goal, our firm has developed a draft Communications Plan for
the board’s consideration. It will address the following communications issues that we
believe would help achieve the board’s goal of raising the agency’s profile both with key
political and water industry stakeholders as well as effectively communicating water use
efficiency tips to EOCWD’s 1,200 retail customers to encourage behavior change.
The key tactics we propose includes:










Website update to include information about water restrictions and water use
efficiency tips.
Social Media development and management. Budget advertising for EOCWD
service territory customers.
Bill Inserts to provide customers direct information and tips while driving them
online for additional information.
Project Brochure to be mailed to all 1,200 EOCWD retain customers.
Community Coffees to be held on Saturday mornings in neighborhoods
throughout the EOCWD retail service area.
Speakers Bureau for local service clubs as well as industry presentations.
Media Relations to assist with the education of reporters and editorial board
staff. Draft op-ed articles for board submittal and monitor media and blogs.
Video Production to communicate clearly and succinctly about water use
efficiency tips video public service announcements that are suitable both for
cable TV as well as on the EOCWD website and social media page.
Fact Sheets / FAQ developed for board members. Assign board members to
participate in various water industry boards and committees as availability allows.
Strategic Partnerships with organizations and agencies that already have water
use efficiency tips and programs available including the cities of Orange and
1
Tustin, the Orange County Garden Friendly program, MWDOC’s OCWaterSmart
program, etc.
Efficient Service and Quality Staffing
Communications LAB is dedicated to providing EOCWD with an outreach plan that is
both effective and efficient. As you may know, our firm has provided EOCWD services
at an hourly rate that offers a discount from our already low public agency rate. We
propose to continue providing communications consulting services at the same low rate
we proposed last year. We consistently provide effective and quality service and have
come in under budget each month. We are committed to continued service to the
District at a low rate that does not burden the District with permanent staffing, pensions
or any benefit obligations.
Brian Lochrie, President of Communications LAB, will continue to serve as the strategic
advisor and will coordinate directly with the staff and board on all issues related to the
strategic communications plan. Senior Account Manager David Cordero will provide
day-to-day project management service and execution of the work plan. Cordero brings
16 years of experience in public affairs including more than a decade as the
Government Affairs Director of the Municipal Water District of Orange County. He
brings with him relationships that are unparalleled in the water community.
Other key staff members that may be involved in the effort include our Creative Director
and Graphic Designer Mike Schnell, our Web Designer Arianna Barrios, our Social
Media Director Francisco Barajas and Account Coordinator who will assist the team in
administration of the contract Monet Eaves.
Communications Plan:
Due to the Governor’s order for mandatory water restrictions that is particularly punitive
to East Orange County Water District (EOCWD) customers, it is incumbent upon
EOCWD to conduct a community outreach and public education campaign among its
1,200 retain customers emphasizing the importance of water use efficiency. The
messaging will emphasize the EOCWD past successes and frugal stewardship as well
as the water use efficiency tips that will help drive behavior change. The budget
numbers associated with each task items are based on annual development and
management estimates and may vary based on the prioritization of the tactics by the
EOCWD board and staff.
Website Revisions / Management
$7,500
Social Media
$7,000
Our in-house web designer will review the EOCWD website and provide
suggestions to enhance both the design as well as the functionality of the
drought page. New information is needed. A blog where updated information
can be posted might be effective as well. Our budget includes a $1,500 initial
update of information and $500 per month maintenance and update fee.
2
Our social media expert, Francisco Barajas, will develop the EOCWD Facebook
page and create a social media calendar for staff approval. Our team will then
post articles, updates and teasers to the Facebook page to encourage
engagement and Facebook shares. The cost breakdown is $1,000 for the
development of the Facebook page and $500 per month to post articles and
information. Francisco Barajas would serve as the manager, however, several
CommLAB staff members would also be administrators to the page.
In addition to the development, maintenance and updates to the page, we
recommend a modest social media advertising budget targeted to the EOCWD
service territory that is identified separately within the “expense” section of the
budget.
Bill Inserts
$2,500
Communications LAB will design bill inserts to go in water bills that are already
going to EOCWD customers. These bill inserts will provide both tips for water
use efficiency as well as website information to learn more about rebates on
water use efficiency materials including drip irrigation systems, California Friendly
plants, rain barrels, etc. The bill insert will also address head-on the
consequences for not engaging in behavior change (i.e. significant water rate
increases).
The $2,500 budget noted here is related to the development of the messaging
and the design of the bill insert. Any required printing would be separately
addressed within the “expense” section of the budget.
Project Brochure
$3,500
Communications LAB will design and print project brochures for EOCWD’s 1,200
retail customers. The brochures would address the urgency of the need to
conserve water and include several water use efficiency tips. These brochures
would be mailed to each customer and include a postage-paid business reply
card that includes a box that says they would like a home inspection where a
staff member could visit and suggest water use efficiency changes. A second
box to be checked would say the customer pledges to adopt water use efficiency
behaviors. Extra brochures would be printed in order to use them as handouts at
community events and community coffees.
The $3,500 budget includes the development of the copy, the design and two
rounds of edits and revisions prior to printing. The printing of the brochure is
separately addressed within the “expense” section of the budget.
Community Coffees
$15,000
Communications LAB will hold up to six “Community Coffee” informal gatherings
on Saturday mornings in the neighborhoods of the EOCWD customers. We will
go door-to-door the week prior notifying them of the event through door-hanger
3
invitations. Then at 9:00 am on Saturday mornings, we will provide coffee and
donuts along with water use efficiency material such as nozzles, water timers,
and perhaps California Friendly plants at no charge to encourage water use
efficiency. The giveaway items are not included within this budget and would be
obtained through MWDOC or the city water departments.
The $15,000 budget includes the outreach prior to the community coffees and
staffing the Saturday morning community coffees. The budget also includes the
design of the door-hanger invitations. The printing of the door-hangers is
separately addressed in the “expenses” section of the budget.
Speakers Bureau
$7,500
Media Relations
$6,000
Video Tips
$3,000
Local service clubs like Rotaries, Kiwanis, Chambers of Commerce and other
community organizations are filled with key community stakeholders who are
influencers in the community. We will coordinate with the schedulers in these
groups and service organizations to offer an EOCWD representative to speak
about the latest water restrictions and provide water use efficiency tips and
brochures for them to take home. We will develop a PowerPoint for the
presentations and in sensitivity to staff time, we will offer to provide the
presentations as needed.
Once the Community Coffees are fully implemented, we will reach out to the local
community newspapers (Tustin News, Orange City News, Foothills Sentry) as
well as the environmental and science reporter at the OC Register (Aaron
Orlowski) to invite them to attend the community coffees and communicate the
importance of encouraging the community to adhere to the new water
restrictions. We will monitor the media and respond as needed by developing
op-ed articles and/or letters to the editor.
Communications LAB has developed three half-minute “Don’t Doubt the Drought”
water use efficiency video tips for Santa Margarita Water District to communicate
key messages through a video medium. In order to limit the production cost and
minimize post-production costs, we suggest approaching SMWD to ask for the
rights to use the concepts and content of the three videos and change the logo
and content as needed to make the videos EOCWD-specific.
The noted budget includes post-production edits and minor production fees for
the three videos. We would also export the video files at a level that could be
used for broadcast television as well as online. Should SMWD not wish to
release the concepts and content at no charge, EOCWD may wish to
contemplate offering a modest fee for the rights to obtain the video for its own
use.
4
The potential cost to obtain the rights to the videos are contemplated under the
“expenses” section of the budget.
Fact Sheets / FAQ
$4,000
Communications LAB will develop a Fact Sheet and Frequently Asked Questions
as it relates to water use efficiency and the water restrictions enacted upon
EOCWD by the state. The information will be developed in memorable, bitesized chunks that will enhance the board’s communications efforts.
The documents will be dynamic and can be changed on an as-needed basis.
Creative Director Mike Schnell will create an attractive template so they can be
used as “leave-behind” informational sheets as well.
Strategic Partnerships
$4,000
Communications LAB will approach the various municipalities, water districts and
county programs to investigate the potential for partnerships and the use of
existing collateral material, messaging and other content. We will also suggest
that EOCWD be represented on the material that these public agency partners
are disseminating.
TOTAL PROFESSIONAL FEES (12 months):
$60,000
Expense fees:
The expenses, or hard costs, associated with this Communications Plan would
be minimal and would include the following estimated costs:
Social Media advertising ($100 per month)
$1,200
Bill Inserts
$2,000
Project Brochures (printing, mailing, BRC) quantity 2,500
$3,500
Community Coffee door hangers (six printings)
$1,500
Community Coffee expenses (donuts, coffee)
$ 300
Video Production Rights from SMWD (negotiated fee)
$3,000
Total Expenses (ESTIMATED):
$11,500
Total one-year budget (Professional Fees / Expenses)
$71,500
5
Client Rate Sheet
EOCWD
Chief Executive Officer
$190/hour
$175/hour
President
$185/hour
$165/hour
Senior Account Manager
$175/hour
$150/hour
Account Manager
$150/hour
$140/hour
Account Executive
$125/hour
$115/hour
Administrator
$100/hour
$ 75/hour
Intern
$ 75/hour
$ 50/hour
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: PROPOSITION 218 WATER RATE STUDY
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
BACKGROUND
In the Fall of 2009, the District participated in a MWDOC project that sought and received grant
funding for agencies that were willing to incorporate “water budgets” into their billing system. This
grant paid for 60% of the costs incurred to develop water budgets (using a process called aerial
thermography) for our Retail Zone customers; Raftelis Financial Consultants performed this work for
the District. After significant effort, water budgets were incorporated into the District’s Retail Zone
billing system in 2010.
In the Fall of 2010, faced with mandatory water allocations from MET, and declining revenues, the
District solicited a proposal from Raftelis to perform a Retail Zone Water Rate Study and retained
them at a cost of $23,085. Under Proposition 218, water rate studies must be developed in a very
prescribed manner and also include a significant public information effort, along with a public hearing.
In their scope of work, Raftelis held two Board workshops and then developed a rate model that
examined several rate structures, including inclining tiers as well as uniform rates. At that time,
preparation of the administrative record – or the written “Cost of Service Analysis” was performed by
district staff, not Raftelis. Ultimately, the Board decided to retain the uniform rate structure and
settled upon a three-year rate increase recommended by Raftelis that commenced in June, 2011 and
concluded in June, 2013.
Because of the rapidly and exponentially increasing cost of water, along with reduced water sales
that will occur because of the drought and mandatory reductions, staff solicited proposals to retain a
consultant to perform a water rate study within the next six months. The scope of work for this effort
was expanded from the 2010 effort (which only examined Retail Zone water rates) to include three
additional items:
1) Review of Wholesale Zone Rates and Fees
2) Review of Retail Zone connection and miscellaneous fees
3) Preparation of a Financial Plan and Cost of Service Analysis Report
Three firms were prequalified to receive the Request for Proposal: 1) Raftelis Financial
Consultants, 2) NBS and 3) The Willdan Group. Two proposals were received; the Willdan Group did
not respond to our request.
The proposals were evaluated pursuant to the attached evaluation form. Five specific evaluation
criteria were established and weighted as follows (Note, cost was not considered until after the
technical evaluation was completed:
Memo re: Proposition 218 Water Rate Study
April 2, 2015
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Completeness of response
Firm & Team Qualifications/Experience with like-sized water agencies
Approach to Work
Quality of References
Cost
Weight
15%
20%
15%
20%
30%
Based upon the proposal analysis, Raftelis submitted the most responsive proposal (achieving a
score of 97 out of 100). While theirs was not the lowest cost proposal, upon evaluation it was ranked
higher due to: 1) Raftelis’ experience with wholesale water agencies (MWDOC, Western Municipal
Water District, Eastern Municipal Water District, and 2) the greater number of hours Raftelis
estimates for the preparation of the Administrative Record/COSA (40) versus NBS (26). The
importance of thorough documentation of the ratemaking process was highlighted in the Capistrano
Taxpayers Association v. City of Capistrano water rate case. The value of this effort exceeds the
$3,280 differential in cost.
The Finance Committee reviewed this issue at their April 2nd meeting and recommended that the
Board approve the contract with Raftelis Financial Consultants.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board approve a contract with Raftelis Financial Consultants to prepare a Water Rates, Fees
& Charges Study at a not-to-exceed cost of $35,000.
2
2015 Water Rate Study Services
Proposal Evaluation Form
Proposals were evaluated based upon the evaluation criteria as stated below. The cost proposal was not considered until after the
qualifications points were awarded.
Points
Rating
9-10
8-7
6-5
4-3
2-1
0
Excellent response
Insightful response
More than adequate response
Adequate response, no special insights
Inadequate response
No response given
Factor
Weight
Response was complete and met RFP requirements
Professional qualifications of firm & team &
experience with like sized water agencies
Approach to work/Value added Items
Quality of references
Cost
15%
20%
Evaluation
Criteria
15%
20%
30%
NBS
Raftelis
R
W
R
W
1. Completeness of Response
10
15
10
15
2. Firm & Team Qualifications/
Experience with like-sized water agencies
8
18
10
20
3. Approach to Work/Value Added Items
7
11
10
15
4. Quality of References
10
20
10
20
5. Cost
10
30
9
27
TOTAL SCORE
R = Rating
94
W = Rating with Weighted Factor Applied
Not-toExceed
Cost
Ranking
Raftelis
$35,000
1
NBS
$31,720
2
Firm Name
97
201 S. Lake Avenue
Suite 301
Pasadena, CA 91101
Phone
Fax
Ms. Lisa Ohlund
General Manager
East Orange County Water District
185 N. McPherson Road
Orange, CA 92869
626 . 583 . 1894
626 . 583 . 1411
www.raftelis.com
March 30, 2015
Subject: Proposal for the Preparation of Water Rates, Fees & Charges Study
Dear Ms. Ohlund:
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the East Orange County Water
District (District) with conducting a Water Rates, Fees, and Charges Study (Study). RFC has the largest utility consulting
practice in California and the nation specializing in utility financial planning and rate studies. We believe our unique
combination of resources, local presence, experience, and knowledge will ensure a value-added study that will benefit the
District and the project. Based on our review of the RFP and our experience with similar projects, the primary objective
of the study is to develop a sustainable and sufficient long-term financial plan and establish equitable water rates, fees, and
charges. The newly designed rates may possibly include drought surcharges and other rate tools to encourage compliance
with mandatory rationing requirements for the District’s wholesale and retail water services.
Specifically, the District will benefit from the following advantages offered by RFC:
Depth of Local Resources: As the largest utility financial practice in California and the nation, RFC will ensure the project
is completed on time or with an accelerated schedule, if needed.
Experience: RFC staff have assisted more than 500 water, wastewater, and recycled water utilities across the country on
financial, rate, and management consulting engagements.
Industry Leadership: Our senior staff is involved in shaping industry standards by chairing various committees within the
American Water Works Association (AWWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF).
Modeling Experts: The model developed for this project will be built from scratch. Our model will be customized for concise
presentations at workshops to help facilitate agreement on financial and rate policies associated with the project.
Focus: RFC’s services are solely focused on providing financial, rate, and management consulting services to water, wastewater, recycled water, and stormwater utilities.
Client Satisfaction: RFC strives to develop strong relationships with each of our clients and have earned new work through
positive references from existing clients and a solid industry reputation. Your success is our success.
We are excited about this opportunity to assist the District with this important study. If you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sanjay Gaur, Project Manager (Vice President)
201 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 301, Pasadena, CA 91101
P: 213.327.4405 / F: 626.583.1411 / E: sgaur@raftelis.com
Very truly yours,
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Sanjay Gaur
Vice President
SCOPE OF WORK
The East Orange County Water District (EOCWD) provides wholesale water service to 15 different connections and
retail water service to 1,207 residential and non-residential
connections in a portion of the cities of Tustin and Orange,
Irvine Ranch Water District, Golden State Water Company,
and the unincorporated community of Panorama Heights.
The District purchases imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) for its
wholesale and retail water demand.
For the past two years California has experienced one of
the most severe droughts in State history. To address water
supply issues, on January 20, 2015, MWDOC adopted a
methodology to determine the allocation to its member agencies. Member agencies, such as the District, can purchase
water above the allocation, but such purchases are subject to
severe penalties. The District is particularly concerned about
the impacts that the MWDOC water allocation will have
and desires to examine, and possibly incorporate, drought
penalties or some other rate tool to encourage conservation.
Furthermore, the District would like to determine and mitigate the resulting financial impacts due to the reduction in
water sales. In light of these goals, it is crucial that a highly
qualified consultant is able to conduct a water rates, fees,
and charge study that can provide sustainable and sufficient
revenues, while remaining consistent with the District’s
policies and cost of service principles.
The utility industry consistently seeks RFC as an advisor to
lead the national discourse concerning rate structures. RFC
adds value to the rate design process not only through the
high level of technical expertise that results from deep experience, but the ability to glean the best ideas and strategies
through the collaborative process.
TASK 1 – PROJECT INITIATION, FRAMEWORK
DEVELOPMENT WORKSHOP, AND DATA
COLLECTION AND REVIEW
RFC will communicate and work with District staff to
collect, research, and review relevant data for the Study
including, but not limited to: current rates, current and
projected water demands, current reserve policies, budgeted
documents for revenues and expenses, capital replacement
program and infrastructure development, water supply,
power costs, and MWDOC drought allocation. During
the web-based Kick-Off and Framework Workshop, RFC
will discuss the District’s current challenges, project goals
and expectations, and other important issues to ensure
mutual agreement among project participants. RFC will
work closely with District staff to discuss and develop the
[1]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
framework of the Study, including but not limited to: reserve
policies; water sales reduction goals by customer class for
each of the MWDOC drought allocation stage; drought
impact mitigation policies; and rate design to promote conservation and achieve the District’s water reliability goals
while maintaining/enhancing revenue stability and providing water affordability during drought.
Task Deliverables:
»» Data request list to District staff prior to Kick-Off and
Framework Workshop
»» Review of provided data
»» Presentation materials to guide the discussion for the Kick-Off
and Framework Workshop with District staff in Microsoft
PowerPoint 2013
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» One (1) web-based Kick-Off Meeting and Framework
Workshop with District staff
TASK 2 – FINANCIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SERVICES
RFC will develop a non-proprietary interactive Financial
Plan Model (FPM) for wholesale and retail services to
develop a forecast of water revenue requirements over the
planning horizon. The FPM will take into consideration
estimates of operating and non-operating revenues, projections of operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses, and
capital replacement program and infrastructure development. These projections are based on historical results and
current economic trends such as the Consumer Price Index
(CPI), other inflation factors, and price elasticity of demand
assumptions. Using the FPM, RFC will then identify and
quantify financial impacts of MWDOC drought allocations
and determine the drought-related costs to be mitigated via
drought surcharges and develop the multi-year sustainable
and sufficient financial plan. The financial plan will be presented in an easy-to-understand format on an interactive
‘Dashboard’ which shows the impacts of various assumptions so that decisions regarding revenue adjustments, capital
financing through pay-go or debt, and reserve balances can
all be made quickly and efficiently.
Several features of the FPM include (as shown in the Dashboard on the following page):
»» Inputs for key variables (item #1 in Dashboard on the
following page) including revenue adjustments, drought
revenue requirement (item #2), water demand scenario
(item #3), selections for capital program scenarios (item
#4) and funding sources
Features of the Dashboard denoted with letters and numbers in the model below are described in the text.
2
4
1
3
D
A &B
C
»» Graphical presentations of projected operating costs
and revenue streams, reserve balances, and target levels
according to District policies and different funding
sources of CIP (PAYGO or debt financed) with flagging
features for insufficiency and errors within the Model
(items A-E in Dashboard above)
»» Numerical results summarized in pro-forma format for
wholesale and retail services
»» Graphical and numerical summary of the results for the
whole District
The Dashboard is the graphical interface which displays
the Model’s results in an easily understandable format. As
denoted with corresponding letters in the figure above, the
Dashboard contains several features, including the ability
to show or indicate:
A.Revenue adjustments required for the next five (or more)
years in order to meet debt coverage and target reserve
balance(s) (blue bars in the Revenue Adjustments and
Debt Coverage chart)
B.Drought fees required to recover the drought-related
costs (green bars in the Revenue Adjustments and Debt
Coverage chart) at selected Water Demand Scenarios
that mimics the Drought Stages set in the Utility’s Water
Conservation Plan
C.Projected operating costs and revenue streams (shown in
the Water Operating Financial Plan chart)
E
D.Different funding sources of CIP, PAYGO, or debt
financed (shown in the CIP and Funding Sources for
Water Funds chart)
E.Reserve balances and target levels according to District
policies (shown in the Projected Ending Fund Balances)
with flagging features when projected balances fall below
target levels
Following development of the Financial Plan Model, RFC
will hold a web-based Financial Plan Workshop with District staff to review the assumptions made and the FPM
results, and to develop a financial plan scenario to be used
for the rate determination.
Task Deliverables:
»» Financial Plan Model in Microsoft Excel 2013
»» Presentation materials to guide the web-based Financial Plan
Workshop with District staff in Microsoft PowerPoint 2013
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» One (1) web-based Financial Plan Workshop with District staff
TASK 3 – COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS FOR
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL WATER SERVICES
Water rates for retail services are subject to Proposition
218 requirements, which require a nexus between the cost
of providing water service and the water rates, fees, and
charges. To equitably allocate the revenue requirements
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[2]
Features of the Dashboard denoted with numbers in the model below are described in the text.
1
5
3
2
4
to each customer class and determine the cost of providing
water service to each of these classes, the cost of service
analysis will be conducted according to the following process
as defined by the industry standards provided in Manual
M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 6th Edition
(Manual M1) published by the AWWA: review customer
class usage patterns, allocate costs to functional cost categories, and allocate functional costs to customer classes.
Throughout the cost allocation process, RFC will comply
with the District’s policy considerations, procedures, and
guidelines applicable to charges for water service and ensure
that proposed rates are in compliance with Proposition
218. This analysis provides one of the critical components
necessary to establish a defensible administrative record for
cost-based water rates.
Task Deliverables:
»» Cost of service summary tables to be incorporated into the rate
calculations and report
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» None
TASK 4 – RATE CALCULATIONS AND
CUSTOMER IMPACT ANALYSES
The residential customers have been allocated water budgets,
however, there are no penalty rates for exceeding allocations. To promote conservation and be in compliance with
Proposition 218, RFC will develop a Water Rate Model
to calculate wholesale and retail water rates using the cost
[3]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
6
of service summary from Task 3. The Model will have the
ability to:
»» Evaluate the different fixed/variable revenue structures to
enhance revenue stability
»» Examine the inclusion of a residential penalty tier for
exceeding water budgets to promote conservation based
on marginal water supply costs
»» Calculate drought rate/surcharges that mimics the
different water stages of the District’s emergency water
supply shortage plan to ensure sufficient cost recovery for
operations and other programs
The Dashboard, which displays key variables and results in
real-time on screen, will facilitate discussion to reach a consensus quickly. As part of this task, RFC will also review,
recommend changes if appropriate, and update the connection fees. To help facilitate informed decision making, the
Model will also include a summary of financial impacts on
customers resulting from the proposed rate structure. The key
variables and results described in the following correspond to
the numbers on the sample Dashboard shown above.
Key Variables
1. Cost Allocations to Different Rate Components — The
total revenue requirement is distributed amongst the various costs such as water supply, delivery, conservation,
billing and customer service, capacity, etc.
2. Water Supply Costs Information for Incremental / Marginal Water Supply Rate Components — The supply
costs for the next available source of water supply which
is a primary driver of pricing for higher tier usage.
3. Cost Recovery in Tiers — How the costs to provide service are distributed between tiers.
Results
4. Resulting Proposed Rates — The proposed rates based
on the parameters set with the key variables.
5. Sample SFR Bills Impacts at Various Usage Levels —
A graphical representation of how the proposed rate
structure will impact customers’ bills. Note the ability
to change the meter size, lot size, zone, and the billing
period for the bill calculations. This tool has proven particularly useful for public outreach campaigns and during
the Proposition 218 process.
6. Overall Customer Impact — A summary of how customers will see changes in their bills if the proposed rate
structure is adopted. This is an invaluable tool to facilitate
informed decision making.
Task Deliverables:
»» Water Rate Model in Microsoft Excel 2013
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» None
TASK 5 – RATE DESIGN WORKSHOPS WITH
DISTRICT STAFF AND DISTRICT BOARD
Following the completion of the Model, RFC will hold a
web-based Rate Design Workshop with District staff to
develop different rate scenarios. The goal of this workshop
is to identify the water rates that will be presented at the
rate workshop with the District’s Board. Changes and suggestions from staff will be incorporated into the analysis
prior to presenting the final results during a subsequent
workshop with the Board. In the Rate Design Workshop
with the District Board, Sanjay Gaur, the Project Manager,
will present the results of the financial plan and proposed
rates and discuss the benefits and challenges associated
with each proposed rate alternative. The presentation will
summarize the evaluated policy options, the methodology
and approach used for the analyses, and modeling results
and recommendations on water rates, fees, and charges. On
the same day of the Board Workshop, RFC will conduct
a half-day Model Use Training Session for District staff.
Presentation materials used during the Training Session will
be provided to District staff for future reference.
Task Deliverables:
»» Presentation materials for Rate Design Workshops and
Model Training in Microsoft PowerPoint 2013 and meeting
minutes for the Workshops to summarize the policy issues
discussed and directions provided by the District
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» One (1) web-based Rate Design Workshop with District
staff
»» One (1) on-site Rate Design Workshop with District
Board
»» One (1) half-day on-site Model Use Training session
(same day as Board Workshop)
TASK 6 – REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND RATE
PROPOSAL WORKSHOP WITH DISTRICT BOARD
The process for developing the financial plan and proposed
rate structures along with preliminary rate recommendations will be described in a draft report of findings and
recommendations. This draft report will be submitted after
the Rate Design Workshop with District Board (Task 5) to
incorporate their input into the final results. As a means
to ensure that the study includes a thorough administrative
record, the Final Report will include an exhibit listing all
rate design assumptions and methodologies used to develop
the financial plan and rates. Comments from District staff
will be incorporated into the Final Report and the Model
will be refined to reflect appropriate issues or concerns
raised. The Report will be submitted to the District and
will include appropriate supporting data from the Model
to address the requirements of Proposition 218. Prior to
providing public notification of the proposed water rates,
RFC will present the final results and report to the District
Board in a Rate Proposal Workshop format.
Task Deliverables:
»» Draft report, final report in Microsoft Word 2013 and PDF
»» Presentation materials for the Rate Proposal Workshop with
District Board
Meeting(s) / Conference(s):
»» One (1) conference call with District staff to review the draft
report
»» One (1) on-site Rate Proposal Workshop with District Board
TASK 7 – OPTIONAL TASKS
Task 7-1: On-going Technical Support
RFC will be available to provide on-going technical support
for the use of the Financial Plan and Rate Models and/or
other analysis upon request on time and material basis.
Task 7-2: Proposition 218 Public Hearings
Upon request, RFC will prepare a presentation summarizing
the alternatives and proposed rates and present the results of
the Study at the Public Hearing to adopt the recommended
rates and will be available to answer any questions from the
public. The services will be provided on time and material
basis. The estimated cost per meeting is shown in the Estimated Hours and Costs section.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[4]
FIRM OVERVIEW
In 1993, Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc. (RFC) was founded to provide services that help utilities function as
sustainable organizations while providing the public with clean water at an affordable price.
Depth of Resources: RFC has the largest and one of the
most respected water industry financial and rate consulting
practice in California and the nation. Our depth of resources
will allow us to sufficiently staff this project with the qualified personnel necessary to efficiently and expeditiously meet
the objectives of the District.
Local & National Experience: RFC staff have assisted
more than 500 water and/or wastewater utilities across the
country on financial, rate, and management consulting
engagements. These utilities include some of the largest
and most complex utilities in the country. In addition, we
have worked with numerous utilities throughout the State of
California on hundreds of studies, including financial plans,
cost of service, and pricing. Our extensive national and local
experience will allow us to provide innovative and insightful
recommendations to the District, and will provide validation
for the proposed methodology ensuring that industry best
practices are incorporated.
Industry Leadership: Our senior staff is involved in shaping
industry standards by chairing various committees within
the AWWA and WEF. RFC’s staff members have authored
and co-authored many industry standard books regarding
utility rate setting, and RFC publishes the national Water
and Wastewater Rate Survey, which is co-published with
AWWA, and the CA-NV Water Rate Survey, which is
co-published with the CA-NV AWWA. Being so actively
involved in the industry will allow us to keep the District
informed of emerging trends and issues, and to be confident
that our recommendations are insightful and founded on
sound industry principles.
Focus: RFC’s services are solely focused on providing
financial, pricing, and management consulting services to
water-industry utilities. This focus allows RFC professionals
to develop and maintain knowledge and skills which are
extremely specialized to the services that we provide, and
will allow us to provide the District with independent and
objective advice.
Experts on California Regulatory Requirements: The
regulatory environment in California has become more
stringent due to Proposition 218 and Government Code
Section 54999. RFC staff are very knowledgable about
these regulations and have made presentations on this
[5]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
subject for the Association of California Water Agencies
(ACWA), California Society of Municipal Finance Officers
(CSMFO), and CA-NV AWWA. In addition, we are frequently called on to be expert witnesses regarding these
regulatory matters. This expertise will allow the District to
be confident that our recommendations take into account all
of these regulatory requirements.
Modeling Expertise: RFC has developed some of the
most sophisticated yet user-friendly financial/rate models
available in the industry. Our models are custom-built on a
client-by-client basis, ensuring that the model fits the specific needs and objectives of the client. Our models are tools
that allow us to examine different policy options and cost
allocations and their financial/customer impacts in real time.
Our models are non-proprietary and are developed with the
expectation that they will be used by the client as financial
planning tools long after the project is complete.
Rate Adoption Expertise: RFC has assisted numerous
agencies with getting proposed rates successfully adopted.
Our experience has allowed us to develop an approach that
effectively communicates with elected officials about the
financial consequences and rationale behind recommended
rates to ensure stakeholder buy-in and successful rate
adoption. This includes developing a “message” regarding
the changes in the proposed utility rates that is politically
acceptable, and conveying that message in an easy-to–
understand manner.
PROJECT TEAM
Our Project Team consists of some of the most knowledgeable and skilled
financial consulting professionals in the water utility industry. In addition to our dedicated Project Team, the District will have the support
of RFC’s full staff of 50 utility financial and management consultants
for this project. Below, we have included brief profiles for some of our
key Project Team members, and more detailed resumes can be found in
Appendix A.
SANJAY GAUR
PROJECT MANAGER: Vice President
EOCWD
PROJECT DIRECTOR /
TECHNICAL REVIEWER
SUDHIR PARDIWALA, PE
PROJECT MANAGER
SANJAY GAUR
STAFF CONSULTANTS
KHANH PHAN
AKBAR ALIKHAN
JOHNATHAN CRUZ
STEVE GAGNON, PE
KEVIN KOSTIUK
HANNAH PHAN
ROLE ON EOCWD PROJECT: Mr. Gaur will manage the day-to-day
VICTOR SMITH
aspects of the project ensuring it is within budget, on schedule, and effectively meets the District’s objectives. He will also lead the consulting staff
in conducting analyses and preparing of project deliverables. Mr. Gaur served in this role on past projects for EOCWD.
PROFILE: Mr. Gaur has 18 years of public-sector consulting experience, primarily focusing on providing financial and rate
consulting services to water and wastewater utilities. His experience includes providing rate structure design, cost of service
studies, financial analysis, cost benefit analysis, connection/development fee studies, conservation studies, and demand forecasting
for utilities spanning the west coast. Mr. Gaur is considered one of the leading experts in the development of conservation rate
structures. He has often provided his insight into utility rate and conservation-related matters for various publications and
industry forums, including: authoring articles in Journal AWWA; being quoted in various newspaper articles including the Los
Angeles Times and the New York Times; participating in a forum regarding the future of water in Southern California sponsored
by the Milken Institute; being quoted on National Public Radio; speaking at various industry conferences including American
Water Works Association (AWWA), the Utility Management Conference, Association of California Water Agencies, and
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers; and, co-authoring several industry guide books including AWWA’s Manual
M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 6th Edition as well as AWWA’s Water Rates, Fees, and the Legal Environment,
Second Edition. Mr. Gaur co-authored a chapter entitled, “Understanding Conservation and Efficiency Rate Structures,” for the
Fourth Edition of the industry guidebook, Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape. Mr. Gaur is also
active in a number of utility-related associations, including serving as a member of AWWA’s Rates and Charges Committee.
SUDHIR PARDIWALA, PE
PROJECT DIRECTOR / TECHNICAL REVIEWER: Executive Vice President
ROLE ON EOCWD PROJECT: Mr. Pardiwala will be responsible for overall project accountability, and will be available to
provide insights into various cost of service and rate-setting matters. He will also provide quality control oversight for the project.
PROFILE: Mr. Pardiwala has 37 years of experience in financial studies and engineering. He has extensive expertise in water
and wastewater utility financial and revenue planning, valuation and assessment engineering. He has conducted numerous
water, storm water, reclaimed water and wastewater rate studies involving conservation, drought management, risk analysis,
as well as system development fee studies, and has developed computerized models for these financial evaluations. He has
assisted several utilities with State Revolving Fund and Water Reclamation Bond loans. Mr. Pardiwala authored the chapter on
reclaimed water rates in the Water Environment Federation’s (WEF) Manual of Practice, Financing and Charges for Wastewater
Systems, and a chapter entitled, “Recycled Water Rates,” for the Fourth Edition of the industry guidebook, Water and Wastewater
Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape. He was vice-chairman of the CA-NV AWWA Business Management Division
and Chairman of the Financial Management Committee.
CONSULTING STAFF
ROLE ON EOCWD PROJECT: Our Team will be supported by seven of RFC’s talented consulting staff from our Pasadena
office. These consultants almost 30 years of combined utility rate consulting experience. Our Project Team will also have
the support of RFC’s full staff of 50 utility financial, rate, and management consultants.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[6]
REFERENCES
RFC has provided financial, rate, and/or management consulting services to more than 500 utilities in the U.S.,
including some of the largest and most complex water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities in the nation.
and California. In the past year alone, RFC worked on more than 400 financial, rate, and management, and
operational consulting projects for over 250 water, wastewater, and/or stormwater utilities in 38 states,
the District of Columbia, Canada, and Puerto Rico, including projects for more than 75 California utilities.
Below, we have provided detailed descriptions of several similar projects along with references.
EL TORO WATER DISTRICT (CA)
REFERENCE: Michael Grandy, Asst. GM/CFO - 24251 Los
Alisos Blvd., Lake Forest, CA 92630 / P: 949.837.7050 / E:
mgrandy@etwd.com
RFC has assisted El Toro Water District (District) with
the development of its rates on an ongoing basis since 2006.
At that time, the District had not updated its water and
wastewater rates or rate structure in more than 10 years and
was operating at a deficit. RFC prepared a 12-year financial plan evaluating the operating and capital expenses, debt
service, and reserve requirements. A cost of service analysis
was conducted to review the equity of the rates and existing
rate structures. The adopted rates, resulting from the cost of
service study in 2006, unbundled rate components to convey
the true cost of various service components and to continue
to equitably pass on the cost of water, wastewater, and recycled water services to users.
In 2009, the District engaged RFC to design a water budget
rate structure for its residential and irrigation accounts to
help promote water-use efficiency. RFC designed a water
budget rate structure which ensured revenue stability, financial sufficiency, and provided the appropriate price signal for
different supply costs and conservation program funding for
the District. The following outlines the methodology used
to develop the water budget rate structure:
»» Indoor allocations varied by the number of occupants
and outdoor allocations varied based on weather data and
irrigable area
»» The irrigable area was determined by taking the total
parcel area less the building area acquired from the
Assessors’ Secured Roll
»» The allocation budgets considered irrigation efficiency
and type of landscape
Next, RFC developed a water budget rate model that
allowed the District to quickly view the impacts of alternative rates and budgets, to aid policy makers in making
well-informed decisions in a timely manner. This tool proved
invaluable when presenting the results in a graphical format
to the District Board of Directors because it enabled them
to easily see the impacts of different water budgets on their
customers in real-time. As a result, the Board adopted the
[7]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
water budget rate structure in June 2010. To minimize rate
shock to upper-tier users, RFC developed a three-phase
implementation plan that slowly phased in Tier 3 and Tier
4 rates. The rate unbundling and phase-in implementation
plan were found beneficial and useful for the District during
public outreach and rate implementation. The findings and
recommendations resulting from the Study were summarized and documented in the Study Report.
Since the Water Budget Rate Study in 2009, each year RFC
was retained by the District to conduct the cost of service
annual study to update its water and wastewater rates. In
2012, the District engaged RFC to conduct a recycled water
financial plan study to evaluate the impacts of the recycled
water expansion on the Water and Wastewater Enterprises.
In late 2014 and early 2015, California has experienced one
of the most severe droughts in state history. The District
currently purchases 100 percent of its potable water supply
from the Metropolitan Water District of Orange County
(MDWOC), a wholesale customer of the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California (MWD). To address
water supply issues, MWD developed the Water Supply
Allocation Plan (WSAP) which provides reduced allocations to wholesale customers within MWD’s service area.
In turn, on January 20, 2015, MWDOC adopted a methodology to determine the allocation to its member agencies.
Member agencies, such as the District, can purchase water
above the allocation, but such purchases are subject to severe
penalties. The District engaged RFC in a Drought Rate
Study to determine the indoor and outdoor drought factor
adjustments necessary to encourage conservation among its
residential and irrigation customers and to develop penalty rates for commercial customers in order to achieve the
required reductions in consumption under increasing levels
of drought. As part of the Study, RFC conducted financial
impact analyses on revenues, expenditures, and net revenues
for each drought stage. The Study analyzed the impacts if:
1) customers continued to consume at normal (non-drought)
levels, or 2) customers reduced consumption by the amount
required. The methodology and results of the Study were
documented in the Drought Study Report and submitted to
the District to support the adoption of the District’s “Water
Conservation & Water Supply Shortage Ordinance” in
March of 2015.
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
REFERENCE: Michael Yee, Financial Services Manager 43885 S. Grimmer Blvd., Fremont, CA 94538 /
P: 510.668.4253 / E: Michael.Yee@acwd.com
In 2011, the Alameda County Water District (District)
engaged RFC to conduct a water conservation rate study.
They had recently seen a significant reduction in demand,
which caused a decrease in revenue. The District was
interested in developing a conservation rate structure that
would assist them in meeting the regulatory requirements
of SBx7-7, promote efficiency, and create revenue stability.
The District’s existing rate structure consisted of a fixed service charge and uniform commodity rates for all customer
classes. RFC examined and evaluated inclining tiered rate
structures and water budget-based rate structures. Each
potential rate structure had numerous variations associated with them. Factors examined included: historical vs.
real-time weather factors for designing the tier widths for
budget-based rates and inclining tiered rates; different methodologies for determining residential landscape areas which
were used to determine outdoor water budgets; indoor and
outdoor drought factors; and gallons per capita per day for
each residential household member.
In early 2012, the District commissioned RFC to develop a
25-year Financial Plan Model (Model) to assess risk in water
supply variance and capital spending plans, and evaluate the
associated potential financial impacts. RFC presented the
Model to the District Board to show the District’s financial health under various scenarios related to water supply,
water sales, and expenditures. In the same year, the District
retained RFC to conduct the financial impact analysis of
the outcomes of the union negotiation. RFC worked closely
with District staff to develop the Union Negotiation Module
which was used to demonstrate the financial impacts of the
negotiated labor and benefits contracts on the District.
Since 2012, the District has retained RFC annually for
support on updating the Financial Plan and other financial and rate analyses. In 2014, the District engaged RFC
to conduct a drought rate study to evaluate the financial
impacts of the recent severe and ongoing drought and to
develop a drought rate schedule to help mitigate its financial
impacts. The Drought Study Report, which summarized the
methodology and results of the Study, was submitted to the
District and adopted by the District Board in April 2014.
In late 2014, the District once again retained RFC to conduct a long-term financial plan and cost of service analysis
to develop rates that: would maintain financial sufficiency;
are consistent with the District’s policies; comply with gen-
eral cost of service principles; and are in compliance with
Proposition 218 requirements. During the course of the
Study, the financial plan model (FPM) considered numerous
different drought scenarios and different financial outcomes.
The scenarios covered included normal no-drought conditions, a mild drought ending in one year (2015 drought
only), a medium drought ending after two years (medium),
and a severe drought spanning three years (extended dry
period). In addition, as part of the Study, RFC evaluated
and presented two bi-monthly fixed service charge options
to the Board of Directors during the December 2014 Public
Workshop. One of the goals when developing a fixed charge
is to better align fixed charge revenues with fixed cost and to
align commodity revenues with variable costs. The drought
surcharge, which was developed in the drought rate study
and adopted in July of 2014, will continue to mitigate
the effects of reduced demand until the provisions of the
Drought Surcharge Sunset criterion are met. As part of
the Study, RFC developed the Comprehensive Water Rate
Report (Report) to be used as an administrative record. The
Report highlighted the major issues and decisions made
during the course of the Study, provided an overview of
operations, CIP, and the financial plan, and discussed and
explained the cost of service analysis and methodology used
to develop the final rates. The explanation of the methodology found within the Report demonstrates that the rates
are equitable, reflect the District’s policies and values, and
are driven by the District’s revenue requirements. The Final
Report was submitted to the District in March 2015 for the
Public Hearing in April 2015. Rates are expected to be
adopted on May 1, 2015.
CITY OF SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO (CA)
REFERENCE: Keith Van Der Maaten, Public Works and
Utilities Director - 32400 Paseo Adelanto, San Juan
Capistrano, CA 92675 / P: 949.443.6363 /
E: kvandermaaten@sanjuancapistrano.org
The City of San Juan Capistrano was recently sued by its
ratepayers regarding a tiered rate structure developed by
the City’s previous rate consultants. The plaintiffs were
concerned that the previous rate structure did not meet the
cost of service test per the requirements of Proposition 218.
The courts determined the administrative records were not
sufficient to establish a clear nexus for the rates.
The City selected RFC to assist with resolving this matter.
One factor in the City’s decision for selecting RFC was the
rigorous nature of our approach for defensible rate structures
as compared to many practitioners in the industry. In the case
of the City and other agencies, a common practice has been
to base tier prices on multipliers. This leaves agencies exposed
to courts opining that their multiplier approach violates the
“arbitrary and capricious” provision of Proposition 218.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[8]
In resolving the City’s matter, RFC implemented its
approach for satisfying a clear nexus for the rates; there
needs to be a clear justification of the tiers and pricing. RFC
achieved this nexus by developing rate components which
were used to justify the various tiers for the proposed rate
structure. RFC’s work withstood the rigorous scrutiny of
several City Council meetings, including a multi-hour discussion confirming the defensibility of RFC’s cost of service
approach. The rates were approved and adopted in 2014.
SAN GABRIEL COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT (CA)
REFERENCE: Barbara Carrera, General Manager 8366
Grand Avenue, Rosemead, CA, 91770 / P: (626) 287-0341 /
E: barbara@sgcwd.com
San Gabriel County Water District (District) provides water
service to 45,000 residents and more than 900 businesses
within the City of San Gabriel as well as areas within
Temple City, the City of Rosemead, and surrounding
unincorporated areas. As a result of recent legal cases and
increased public scrutiny, utilities and public agencies have
become more transparent, including ensuring that they have
a clear administrative record which clearly establishes the
nexus between the cost of providing the services and the
rates assessed to ratepayers. In 2014, the District engaged
RFC to conduct a water rate study (Study) to develop a
solvent financial plan for the water enterprise and to establish water rates that are equitable and in compliance with
Proposition 218. The study involved developing a long-term
financial plan to ensure financial sufficiency for the operational and capital expenditures, conducting cost of service
analysis, designing an equitable and defensible conservation
rate structure to enhance revenue stability while also promoting water conservation, and conducting the customer
impact analysis of the proposed rates.
Recent court cases have emphasized the importance for a
thorough administrative record and defensible methodology
to support the final rates. As part of the Study, RFC developed the Comprehensive Water Rate Report (Report) to be
used as an administrative record. The Report highlighted
the major issues and decisions made during the course of the
Study, provided an overview of operations, CIP, the financial plan, and discussed and explained the cost of service
analysis and methodology used to develop the final rates.
The explanation of the methodology found in the Report
demonstrates that the rates are equitable, reflect the District’s policies and values, and are driven by the District’s
revenue requirements.
LA HABRA HEIGHTS COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT (CA)
REFERENCE: Tammy Wagstaff, Treasurer - 1271 Hacienda
Rd., La Habra Heights, CA 90631-8366 / P: 562.697.6769 /
[9]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
E: tammy@lhhcwd.com
In 2011, RFC was engaged by La Habra Heights County
Water District (District) to develop a wholesale rate for
water transported to Rowland Water District (Rowland)
through the District’s transmission system. Rowland sought
to use the District’s facilities to transport 2,000 acre-foot
(AF) of water per year to its service area. The groundwater
rights are owned by Rowland; thus, they would only need
to pay for their fair share of costs in utilizing the District’s
facilities. RFC calculated the wheeling rate using the Utility
Approach recommended by AWWA, which focuses on three
primary cost components: 1) a proportionate share of the
annual depreciation expense associated with the assets that
provide service to wholesale customers; 2) a proportionate
share of the operating and maintenance (O&M) expenses
related to these assets; and 3) a rate of return applied to
the utility’s investment in these assets. In addition, RFC
developed the wheeling rate under two scenarios. Scenario
1 included all capital assets used in the transportation of
the water to Rowland, assuming that the District would be
responsible for the repair and replacement of those assets.
Scenario 2 assumed that Rowland would be responsible for
the repair and replacement of the wells and pumping plants,
as part of the agreement.
In 2012, the District faced significant challenges, mainly
arising from increased water supply costs, in addition to
rising operating costs and a significant Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In FY 2011 the District received
approximately 98 percent of its water supply as groundwater
from the Water Replenishment District and imported the
remaining two percent (approximately) from the Central
Basin Municipal Water District (Central Basin). The Water
Replenishment District increased its replenishment assessment charge from $205 per acre-foot (AF) in FY 2011 to
$244 per AF in FY 2012, an increase of 19 percent. To
address these changes and ensure the financial stability of
the water enterprise, the District engaged RFC to perform
a water rate study (Study), which included developing the
financial planning model (Model) and developing a set of
proposed water rates and recommendations. RFC developed
the Model as a tool to assess risk in water supply variance,
capital spending plans, and evaluate associated potential
financial impact. As part of the Study, RFC developed the
Comprehensive Water Rate Report (Report) to be used as
an administrative record. The Report highlighted the major
issues and decisions made during the course of the Study,
provided an overview of operations, CIP, the financial plan,
and discussed and explained the cost of service analysis and
methodology used to develop the final rates. The 10-year
financial plan and 5-year water rates were adopted by the
Board to be effective July of each year from July 2012 to
July 2016.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
RFC will complete the scope of work within the timeframe shown in the schedule below. The proposed schedule assumes
the needed data will be available in a timely manner and we will be able to schedule meetings with EOCWD as necessary.
Task
Task Descriptions
Apr 2015
May 2015
Jun 2015
Jul 2015
Aug 2015
1
Project Initiation, Framework Development Workshop and Data Collection and Review
Deliverable(s): Data request list, review of provided data, Presentation materials and meeting minutes for the Kick‐off/ Framework Workshop with District staff 2
Financial Plan Development for Wholesale and Retail Services
Deliverable(s): Financial Plan Model in M Excel™ 2013 and Presentation materials and meeting minutes for the Financial Plan Workshop with District staff 3
Cost of Service Analysis for Wholesale and Retail Services
Deliverable(s): Cost of service summary tables to be incorporated into the rate calculations and Report
4
Rate Calculations and Customer Impact Analyses
Deliverable(s): Water Rate Model in Microsoft Excel ™ 2013 5
Rate Design Workshops with District Staff and District Board
Deliverable(s): Presentation materials for Rate Design Workshops and Model Training in Microsoft PowerPoint™ 2013 and meeting minutes for the Workshops 6
Report Development and Rate Proposal Workshop with District Board
Deliverable(s): Draft Report, Final Report in Microsoft Word™ 2013 and PDF and Presentation materials for the Rate Proposal Workshop with District Board
Web‐based Kick‐off Meeting
Delivery of Report and/or Drafts
In‐Person Workshop / Training
Web Meeting
ESTIMATE OF HOURS AND COST
RFC proposes to complete the scope of work outlined in this proposal for a lump sum fee of $35,000 including related
administrative expenses. The following work plan provides a breakdown of the estimated level of effort required for completing each task described. We have also included a separate estimate for optional tasks.
Task
Task
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
Task
No of No of Webinars
No of No of Meetings
Task Descriptions
HOURLY RATES Webinars Meetings
Task Descriptions
Project Initiation, Framework Development HOURLY RATES
Workshop and Data Collection and Review
Project Initiation, Framework Development Financial Plan Development for Wholesale and Workshop and Data Collection and Review
Retail Services
Financial Plan Development for Wholesale and Cost of Service Analysis for Wholesale and Retail Retail Services
Services
Cost of Service Analysis for Wholesale and Retail Rate Calculations and Customer Impact Analyses
Services
Rate Design Workshops with District Staff and Rate Calculations and Customer Impact Analyses
District Board
Rate Design Workshops with District Staff and Report Development and Rate Proposal Workshop District Board
with District Board
Report Development and Rate Proposal Workshop Hours Requirements
SP
Hours Requirements
SG
SC
Admin
Total
SP
$300
SG
$270
SC
$190
Admin
$70
$300
$270
6
$190
8
$70
2
16
$3,440
1
1
1
6
6
8
30
2
16
37
$3,440
$7,990
1
1
1
6
6
30
10
37
17
$7,990
$3,990
1
6
8
10
30
17
38
$3,990
$8,240
38
24
$8,240
$6,110
1
Total
Total Fees & Expenses
Total Fees & Expenses
1
2
1
8
15
30
8
1
2
1
1
1
15
12
8
30
2
24
45
$6,110
$10,050
3
1
3
1
4
12
53
30
116
2
4
45
177
$10,050
TOTAL ESTIMATED MEETINGS / HOURS
PROFESSIONAL FEES
Task Descriptions
3
No of 3
No of 177
$37,830
Total Fees TOTAL ESTIMATED MEETINGS / HOURS
PROFESSIONAL FEES
0
1
TOTAL ESTIMATED MEETINGS / HOURS
with District Board
4
53
116
4
$1,200
$14,310
$22,040
$280
Hours Requirements
No of Meetings
No of Total Fees Hours Requirements
SP ‐ Sudhir Pardiwala (Project Director/Technical Reviewer ‐ Exec. VP)
SP
SG
FC
Admin
Total & Expenses
PROFESSIONAL FEES Webinars
$1,200
$14,310
$22,040
$280 Total Fees $37,830
$37,830
Task
Task Descriptions
SG ‐ Sanjay Gaur (Project Manager ‐ VP)
SP
SG
FC
Admin
Total & Expenses
HOURLY RATES Webinars Meetings $300
$270
$190
$70
SP ‐ Sudhir Pardiwala (Project Director/Technical Reviewer ‐ Exec. VP)
Total Fees $37,830
Total Expenses
$1,990
SC ‐ Staff Consultants
Optional ‐ Proposition 218 Public Hearings HOURLY RATES
$300
$270
$190
$70
SG ‐ Sanjay Gaur (Project Manager ‐ VP)
7.2
1
6
4
10
$2,590
Optional ‐ Proposition 218 Public Hearings Admin ‐ Administration
(per meeting)
Total Expenses
$1,990
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES $39,820
SC ‐ Staff Consultants
7.2
1
6
4
10
$2,590
(per meeting)
TOTAL ESTIMATED MEETINGS / HOURS
0
1
0
6
4
0
10
Admin ‐ Administration
PROFESSIONAL FEES
SP ‐ Sudhir Pardiwala (Project Director/Technical Reviewer ‐ Exec. VP)
SP ‐ Sudhir Pardiwala (Project Director/Technical Reviewer ‐ Exec. VP)
SG ‐ Sanjay Gaur (Project Manager ‐ VP)
SG ‐ Sanjay Gaur (Project Manager ‐ VP)
SC ‐ Staff Consultants
SC ‐ Staff Consultants
Admin ‐ Administration
Admin ‐ Administration
0
$0
$0
6
$1,620
$1,620
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES 4
0
10
$760
$0
$2,380
$760
$0 Total Fees $2,380
Total Fees Total Expenses
Total Expenses
TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES TOTAL FEES & EXPENSES $39,820
$2,380
$2,380
$210
$210
$2,590
$2,590
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 10 ]
EOCWD Request for Proposal for Water Rates, Fees & Charges Study
March 17, 2015
EXHIBIT "E"
(Submit with Proposal)
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO
PROVIDE COVERAGES SPECIFIED
Sanjay Gaur
Representative
(President, Secretary, Partner, Owner or Representative)
Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.
(Name of Company or Corporation or Owner)
certify that the Insurance Requirements set forth in the accompanyi ng District
Sample Agreement have been read and understood ,
and that our insurance company(ies)
Cincinnati Insurance Company
(fill in name of insurance company) is/are able to provide the
coverages specified.
Signature of President, Secretary, Partner, Owner or Representative
March 30, 2015
Date
P a g e 21 | 21
PROJECT TEAM RESUMES
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Model development
»» Financial analysis
»» Cost of service studies
»» Conservation rate structure design
»» Connection/development fee studies
»» Economic analysis
»» Cost benefit analysis
»» Demand forecasting
»» Econometric analysis
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.:
Senior Manager (2012-present);
Manager (2009-2012)
»» Red Oak Consulting, Division of Malcolm
Pirnie (2007-2009)
»» MuniFinancial (2005-2006)
»» A & N Technical Services (1999–2003)
»» United States Peace Corps, Bulgaria
(1995-1997)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Public Administration,
Public Administration/International
Development, Kennedy School of
Government - Harvard University (2003)
»» Master of Science, Applied Economics -
University of California, Santa Cruz (1994)
»» Bachelor of Arts, Economics and
Environmental Studies - University of
California, Santa Cruz (1992)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
»» American Water Works Association -
Rates and Charges Committee
»» California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers
PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITIONS
»» Who’s Who in America, 63rd Edition
(2009)
»» Finalist, National Venture Competition
(2003); Goldman Sachs Foundation
SANJAY GAUR
PROJECT MANAGER
Vice President
PROFILE
Mr. Gaur has 18 years of public-sector consulting experience, primarily focusing on providing financial and rate consulting services to
water and wastewater utilities. His experience includes providing rate
structure design, cost of service studies, financial analysis, cost benefit
analysis, connection/development fee studies, conservation studies, and
demand forecasting for utilities spanning the west coast. His project experience includes engagements with the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority,
Eastern Municipal Water District, Alameda County Water District,
and East Bay Municipal Water District, among many others. Mr. Gaur
is considered one of the leading experts in the development of conservation rate structures. He has often provided his insight into utility rate
and conservation-related matters for various publications and industry forums, including: authoring articles in Journal AWWA; being
quoted in various newspaper articles including the Los Angeles Times
and the New York Times; participating in a forum regarding the future
of water in Southern California sponsored by the Milken Institute;
being quoted on National Public Radio; speaking at various industry
conferences including American Water Works Association (AWWA),
the Utility Management Conference, Association of California Water
Agencies, and California Society of Municipal Finance Officers; and,
co-authoring several industry guide books including AWWA’s Manual
M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees and Charges, 6th Edition as well as
AWWA’s Water Rates, Fees, and the Legal Environment, Second Edition.
Mr. Gaur co-authored a chapter entitled, "Understanding Conservation and Efficiency Rate Structures," for the Fourth Edition of the
industry guidebook, Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The
Changing Landscape. Mr. Gaur is also active in a number of utility-related associations, including serving as a member of AWWA’s Rates
and Charges Committee.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as the Project Manager in assisting East Orange
County Water District in evaluating a water budget rate structure.
Mr. Gaur educated the Board of Directors on the benefits of water
budget rate structure; developed a water budget model to determine
the associated rates and customer impacts.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for a sewer cost-of-service and
rate design study. The engagement called for the redesign of rates
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 12 ]
to achieve City’s policy goals associated with improving
inter-class equity, reducing administrative burden, and
maintaining revenue stability, while adhering to cost-ofservice principles.
meets their objectives. Based on this outcome, RFC developed a conservation rate structure that can compare different
types of inclining and water budget rate structure and evaluate the customer impacts associated with these rate structures.
Mr. Gaur also served as the Project Manager in evaluating
a water budget rate structure for the City. This included
workshop with staff on developing a water budget framework
that is consistent with City policy and the development of a
water budget model that can calculate the associated rates and
estimate customer impacts.
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for rate structure
evaluation study by assisting Eastern Municipal Water
District (EMWD) managers and Board in the evaluation
and assessment of the feasibility of implementing a water
budget rate structure. Mr. Gaur also moderated a series of
three interactive workshops to examine a water budget rate
structure and its ability to meet EMWD policy goals such
as equity, conservation and revenue stability. EMWD was
successfully able to implement a water budget rate structure
in April 2009.
EL TORO WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur assisted El Toro Water District in the development and implementation of a water budget rate structure.
This included facilitating the discussion on the policy
options associated with the allocation factors for indoor and
outdoor needs with staff and the Board, the development
of a water budget model, and ensuring the billing system
is compatible with the new requirements associated with
the water budget rate structure. The new rate structure was
adopted in June 2010.
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for the implementation
of a water budget rate study, which included facilitating and
leading a discussion on the policy options associated with the
development of a water budget rate study. Based on these
policy options, a water budget model was developed that can
evaluate different allocation factors for indoor and outdoor
water use, determine price ratios for the corresponding tiers,
and develop the corresponding rates and customer impacts.
Mr. Gaur served as the Project Manager for the development of a financial model for the District. The model has
the ability to examine the 14 different fund centers of the
District, develop and save different Capital Improvement
Plan scenarios, examine the financial consequences of these
scenarios and compare the results. In addition the model
has the ability aggregate the fund centers by water, wastewater or by the whole District. The model is currently being
utilized by the District to examine long term health of the
District.
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Alameda County Water District (District) currently has a
uniform rate structure and is interested in developing a conservation rate structure that will assist them in promoting
water efficiency, comply with regulatory requirements of
SBx7-7, achieve revenue stability and is equitable. Mr. Gaur
served as the Project Manager and led a series of workshop
with the Executive Management and the Board of Directors
in evaluating and identifying the proper rate structure that
[ 13 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur assisted Rancho California Water District (District) in the development of a water budget rate structure.
The project required the consultant to develop a flexible
water budget model that could do multiply block with
allocation and determine the appropriate revenue within a
month. The team was successfully able to accomplish this
task and assisted the District in implementing the new water
budget rate structure. The rates where successfully adopted
in November 2009.
Mr. Gaur also assisted the District in the development of a
New Water Demand Offset Fee. The New Water Demand
Offset Program is a form of funding of conservation measures that will help to create sustainable, zero water footprint
development. New developments will pay fees called New
Water Demand Offset Fees to create potable water savings
in the existing system to support water demand generated
by new developments. Water savings can be achieved by
converting irrigation accounts to recycled water or installing high efficiency retrofits to replace inefficient fixtures for
existing accounts in RCWD. This fee is expected to be
adopted in February 2010.
AMERICAN WATER COMPANY (CA)
The City of Monterey’s water rate structure allowed for water
budget programs determined by household size, lot size, zip
code, and the number of large animals in the service area.
Mr. Gaur examined and developed a water rate model for the
service area. He also assisted in the design of various water
budget structures that allowed for accountability and examined customer impact of different rate structures. Results were
presented at the California Public Utility Commission.
CITY OF CALEXICO (CA)
Mr. Gaur performed a water and sewer rate study for the
city and examined the implication of Proposition 218 on
lifeline rates. He assisted in the development of a rate model
to determine the appropriate rates for meeting future capital
and reserve needs. Mr. Gaur facilitated a rate workshop and
presented final results to City Council. The City Council
adopted both the recommended water and sewer rates,
which will pay for capital projects associated with water
and sewer.
CITY OF CHOWCHILLA (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as a Project Manager for the City of Chowchilla, Water and Wastewater study. There are two major areas
of the study; the first is the development of a financial plan
that can fund their mandatory CIP, while meeting their reserve
requirements. The second part of the study is the development
of a fair and equitable rate structure, given that the majority of
the customers do not have meters.
CITY OF CORONA (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as a Project Manager for the City of Corona,
Water Budget Rate study. He facilitated a workshop on the
policy options associated with the development of a water
budget rate structure. Based on these policy options, a water
budget model was developed that can conduct sensitivity
analysis on allocation factors, price ratios, revenue requirements and customer impacts.
CITY OF HOLLISTER (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed a sewer rate and impact model to
examine the rate and impact fee implication of $120 million treatment project. He also conducted a workshop and
presented final results to City Council. The Council adopted
the recommended sewer rates, which will finance the $120
million treatment plant project.
INLAND EMPIRE UTILITIES AGENCY (CA)
Mr. Gaur conducted a series of workshops for Inland
Empire Utilities Agency on the different types of conservation rate structure and how they can assist them in meeting
the requirements of SBx7-7, achieving revenue stability and
promoting equity.
INDIO WATER AUTHORITY (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for user fee study to
evaluate current user fees and their ability to recover associated administrative and other operational costs. He developed
a new schedule of user fees to meet City’s policy objectives of
fairness and defensibility.
Mr. Gaur also conducted a water rate study and presented
results to City Council. The Council adopted the recommended water rates, which provided an equitable allocation
of cost between fixed and variable rates.
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur evaluated the District’s conservation program by
conducting econometric analysis that controlled for exogenous
factors, such as weather conditions. The results from the study
provided information on which conservation program provided the greatest return on investment.
CITY OF LOMITA (CA)
Mr. Gaur conducted a water rate workshop with concerned
citizens to explain how rates were assessed and calculated,
using laymen’s terminology to foster understanding among
community members. City Council adopted the recommended rates.
LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND POWER (CA)
Mr. Gaur performed a econometric analyses on daily
demand based on deviation from mean temperature. Results
from the study helped redesign engineer estimates on sizing
of water lines.
CITY OF LYNWOOD (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed a cost allocation model to determine
the appropriate amount of transfer ($3 million) between
the Water Enterprise Fund and the City General Fund.
The report met the requirements associated with Proposition 218.
CITY OF MERCED (CA)
Mr. Gaur completed a water and sewer rate and impact fee
study, including examination of financing options associated with a $200 million treatment plant. The engagement
included the development of a rate and impact fee model
that explored and assessed different capital project scenarios. He also conducted a workshop and presented final
results to City Council. The council adopted the recommended impact fees for water and sewer.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed a drought allocation model for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California member
agencies. The allocation is based on severity of drought,
historical usage, and demand-hardening factor. The model
served as a tool to guide decision making process in determining fair and equitable allocations.
Mr. Gaur also served as project manager for long-range
financial plan study and facilitated workshops with management, member agencies, and stakeholders to assess the
economic, political, and technical feasibility of a growth-related infrastructure charge. He also led seminars to inform
participants of the prevailing industry standards for adhering
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 14 ]
to cost-of-service principles and navigating California’s complex legal environment.
Lastly, Mr. Gaur served as the project manager to evaluate
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California cost of
service methodology to confirm it is consistent with industry
standards, policy objectives that the Board of Directors has
adopted and is being implemented as intended.
MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur provided an evaluation of the conservation impact
of a toilet conservation pilot program for Monterey Peninsula Water Management District using an econometric
analysis that was controlled for seasonal and weather conditions. The study confirmed expected savings estimates.
PASADENA WATER AND POWER (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for comprehensive water
cost-of-service and rate design study. Developed long-range
financial plan with evaluation of recycled water program, rate
stabilization fund, and drought scenarios. He also performed
a cost-of-service analysis and redesigned rates to adhere to
cost-of-service principles and the legal requirements of California Proposition 218.
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
OF ORANGE COUNTY (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed an optimization model for conservation
programs. The results guided the District in developing a
master plan for conservation programs.
PACIFIC INSTITUTE (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed an audit model for water agencies which
determines the amount of greenhouse gases produced by
source of water and the associated energy requirement. The
model has the ability to examine different scenario options
and compare them to the base case.
CITY OF PORT HUENEME (CA)
For this engagement, Mr. Gaur performed a water and solid
waste study and workshop for City Council. The Council
immediately adopted solid waste rate recommendations and
water rates are under consideration.
CITY OF RENO (NV)
Mr. Gaur served as Project Manager for sewer rate and
connection fee study and included the development of a longrange financial plan for sewer fund with evaluation of several
different capital improvement program scenarios, debt/cash
funding combinations and reserve funds. As part of the study,
Mr. Gaur also performed a cost-of-service analysis and developed sewer rates and connection fees to meet policy goals of
[ 15 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
revenue stability and fairness.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (CA)
Mr. Gaur examined SDCWA’s prior practices, made recommendations, and developed an index model that determined
the appropriate inflation and escalation factor for capital
projects. A Monte Carlo simulation was used with the
escalation factor of the index model to develop distribution
estimates.
Mr. Gaur also developed a rate model for the water authority
which allocated resources and costs to member agencies. The
model was used to develop different allocation scenarios based
on historical and spatial factors and served as a tool to guide
decision making process in determining fair and equitable
allocations.
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr Gaur evaluated the effect of a water softener pilot program on conservation. He also conducted billing analysis to
estimate savings, using a control group to account for exogenous factors. The results confirmed engineering estimates
on savings potential.
SOUTH COAST WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur assisted the District in evaluating a water budget
rate structure. Currently the District has a five tiered inclining
rate structure. RFC developed a model that compared the
usage pattern between the current rate structure and a water
budget, to determine how equitable the current rate structure
is, given lot size. Mr. Gaur presented the finding to the Board
of Directors.
CITY OF SOUTH GATE (CA)
Mr. Gaur performed a water impact fee analysis for the city
and presented results to City Council. The Council adopted
the recommended water impact fee, which provides additional resources for expansion projects.
CITY OF VISTA (CA)
As Project Manager for a sewer rate and connection fee
study, Mr. Gaur developed a long-range financial plan for
City of Vista Sanitation and Buena Sanitation District,
including financing of a $300 million capital improvement
program. The project required a cost-of-service analysis
and redesign of the sewer rate structure and connection fee
schedule to adhere to cost-of-service principles while meeting escalating revenue requirements. Mr. Gaur fine-tuned
rates to meet the City’s policy goals of equity, defensibility,
and minimal customer impact.
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur developed a water rate model for the District as
well as examined indexing practices and determined appropriate rates for meter and variable charges.
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gaur served as the Project Manager for conducting a
water rate study for Yorba Linda Water District. This study
included the development of a financial plan that examined
different CIP scenarios, cost of service study and development of a conservation rate structure. RFC developed a
conservation rate model that evaluated an inclining tiered
rate and a water budget rate structure, that can determine
the associated rate structure and estimate customer impacts.
Mr. Gaur will present the finding of the study to the Board
and make the associated recommendation.
»»
»»
»»
TOWN OF BUCKEYE (AZ)
Mr. Gaur performed an impact fee study that identified
and examined possible facility types and explored different
financial options for funding facility types. He also examined the benefits of zonal impact fees. Mr. Gaur educated
developers in the process of assessing impact fees and the
role of credits.
»»
TOWN OF CLARKDALE (AZ)
Mr. Gaur identif ied and examined facility types for
impact fee and discussed policy implications of impact
fees.
»»
TOWN OF GILBERT (AZ)
Mr. Gaur was engaged by the Town of Gilbert to determine
the true cost of providing fire services for the town. He also
examined the economic impact of potential legislation on
expanding service to a county island. He served as expert witness and presented findings on behalf of the city which assisted
in the Town’s winning case.
OTHER RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»» City of Livingston (CA) - Water Rate Study
»» La Habra Heights County Water District (CA) –
Wheeling Rate Study
»» City of Newport Beach (CA) – Water Rate Study
»» City of Rio Vista (CA) - Water and Sewer Rate and
Impact Fee Study
RECENT PUBLICATIONS AND
PRESENTATIONS
»» Gaur, S., “Adelman and Morris Factor Analysis of
Developing Countries,” The Journal of Policy Modeling,
Vol. 19, Issue 4, pp. 407-415, August 1997.
»» Gaur, S., “Water Rate Setting,” presented at the Annual
2006 Conference of the California Society of Municipal
Finance Officers, Palm Springs, California.
»» Gaur, S., “Water Rate Setting,” presented at the
»»
»»
»»
»»
»»
»»
»»
»»
following: California Society of Municipal Finance
Officers Chapters: Central Los Angeles, Channel
Counties, Imperial County, San Gabriel Valley, South
Bay and Twenty – Nine Palms 2006.
Gaur, S., “Designing Water Rate Structures,” presented
at a workshop for Urban Water Institute, San Jose,
California. February 17, 2006.
Gaur, S. “How Much Should Water Cost? Theoretical and
Practical Approach in Developing Water Rates.” Guest
lecturer at University of California, Santa Barbara, Course:
Water Policy, Bren School of Environmental Science and
Management. November, 7, 2006.
Gaur, S. “Designing Water Rates,” All day seminar at the
Center for Water Education. Hemet, California. January
12, 2007.
Gaur, S. “Policy Objectives in Designing Water Rates”,
Journal of American Water Works, 99:5 May 2007
p.112- 116.
Gaur, S. Corssmit, K. and Hotchkiss, D. “Water Rates
Defining Cost of Service – Proposition 218 Implications,”
presented at the Association of California Water
Agencies, May 7 , 2008 Spring Conference, Monterey,
California.
Gaur, S. “Moving Beyond the Public Workshop,”
presented at the Municipal Management Association of
Southern California, July 1, 2008 Summer Conference,
La Jolla, California.
Gaur, S. “Evolution of Water Rates,” presented at the
Association of California Water Agencies, December 3,
2008 Fall Conference, Long Beach, California.
Gaur, S. “Managing Drought Scenarios,” presented at the
Association of California Water Agencies, December 4,
2008 Fall Conference, Long Beach, California.
Gaur, S. Corssmit, K., Hildebrand, M. and Hotchkiss, D.
“Defining Latest Trends in Conservation Rate Design,”
presented at the Utility Management Conference, February
18, 2009, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Gaur, S. “Conservation Rate Structures,” presented at the
International Water Efficiency Conference, April 1, 2009
Newport Beach, CA
Gaur, S. “Developing a Water Budget Rate Structure:
Eastern MWD Experience,” presented at the CA/NV
AWWA Section, April 9, 2009, Santa Clara, CA
Gaur, S. and Summers, L. “New M1 Chapter: Water
Budget Rates” presented at American Water Works
Association, Annual Conference and Exposition 10, June
23, 2010, Chicago, IL
Contributing Author to “Water Rates, Fees and the Legal
Environment” 2nd Edition American Water Works
Association 2010 Editor: C.(Kees) W. Corssmit
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 16 ]
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Cost of service rate studies
»» Conservation and drought
management studies
»» Economic analyses
»» Water and wastewater utility cost
accounting
»» Valuation
»» Financial and revenue planning
»» Assessment engineering
»» Reviewing/obtaining capital
improvement funding
»» Computer modeling
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consultants,
Inc.: Executive Vice President
(2013-present); Vice President (20042013)
»» Black & Veatch: Principal Consultant
(1997-2004)
»» MWH: Principal Engineer (1985-1997)
»» CF Braun: Senior Engineer (1979-1985)
»» PFR Engineering Systems: Research
Engineer (1977-1979)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Business Administration -
University of California, Los Angeles
(1982)
»» Master of Science in Chemical
Engineering - Arizona State University
(1976)
»» Bachelor of Science in Chemical
Engineering - Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay (1974)
PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS
»» Registered Professional Engineer: CA
(Chemical (1981) and Civil (1988))
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
»» American Water Works Association
»» Water Environment Federation
»» California Municipal Finance Officers
Association
[ 17 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
SUDHIR PARDIWALA, PE
PROJECT DIRECTOR / TECHNICAL REVIEWER
Executive Vice President
PROFILE
Mr. Pardiwala has 37 years of experience in financial studies and engineering. He has extensive expertise in water and wastewater utility
financial and revenue planning, valuation and assessment engineering.
He has conducted numerous water, storm water, reclaimed water and
wastewater rate studies involving conservation, drought management,
risk analysis, as well as system development fee studies, and has developed computerized models for these financial evaluations. Mr. Pardiwala
has assisted public agencies in reviewing and obtaining alternate sources
of funding for capital improvements, including low interest state and
federal loans and grants. He has assisted several utilities with State
Revolving Fund and Water Reclamation Bond loans. Mr. Pardiwala
authored the chapter on reclaimed water rates in the Manual of Practice,
Financing and Charges for Wastewater Systems, published by the Water
Environment Federation (WEF) and presented papers at various conferences. He also authored a chapter entitled, “Recycled Water Rates,”
for the Fourth Edition of the industry guidebook, Water and Wastewater
Finance and Pricing: The Changing Landscape. He was vice-chairman of
the CA-NV AWWA Business Management Division and Chairman of
the Financial Management Committee.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for RFC’s engagement with
the City of Beverly Hills (City) water and wastewater rate studies. RFC
was engaged by the City to develop a rate and financial planning model
that would be used to evaluate alternative rate structures and to provide
more detailed forecasts to assist in the preparation of updating rates in
future years. RFC modeled numerous alternative rate structures and
reviewed customer and revenue impacts before recommending that the
City modify its current three tiered rate structure to include a fourth
tier that targets large irrigation usage. In addition, RFC recommended
that the costs of service based on flow and strength. RFC continues to
provide biennial updates to the City model so that rates may be projected
in future years.
CITY OF VENTURA (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for a water, wastewater, and
recycled water cost of service and rate study for the City of Ventura
(City). The City had not updated its rate structure in 20 years. Additionally, the City was under a cease and desist order that required the
City to carry out improvements estimated at more than $55 million,
and which the City wanted to start funding to mitigate impacts. The
goal of the study was to develop conservation-oriented rates consistent
with cost of service to recover adequate revenues to pay for necessary
capital improvements, meet debt service coverage requirements, as well
as maintaining sufficient reserve requirements. The study
included a comprehensive review of the City’s revenue
requirements and allocation methodology, review of the
City’s user classification, usage patterns, a cost of service
analysis, and rate design for City users.
RFC developed long-range financial plans so that the water
and wastewater utilities could be financially stable and save
costs in the long run. We also assisted the City with developing different water and wastewater rate alternatives with
various scenarios as well as calculating outside-city rates.
The study was conducted with several meetings and input
from stakeholders comprised of customers within the City.
RFC educated the Citizen Advisory Committee on the
basics of rates, cost allocations, and rate design to obtain
their buy-in through the use of the dashboards in the rate
models we developed for them to demonstrate the impacts
of various revenue adjustments on the long-term financial
stability of the enterprises. RFC also developed a schedule
for funding a major wastewater program required by environmental groups. Recommended rates were implemented
for two years in July 2012.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala conducted numerous studies for the City
of San Diego (City), including a water, wastewater and
reclaimed water rate study. The entire wastewater rate
study was conducted with extensive stakeholder group
involvement because of the changes required in the wastewater rate structure to meet regulatory requirements. In
addition, Mr. Pardiwala served as project manager for the
City’s reclaimed water rate study, impact fee studies for both
water and wastewater, and a transportation charges study
for agencies contributing to the City’s regional wastewater
facility. Mr. Pardiwala also managed a water demand study
which involved statistical analysis of historical water consumption to model projections based on weather, economic
activity, population, inflation, etc. Mr. Pardiwala evaluated
the feasibility of a water budget rate structure for the City.
He assisted the City with the Proposition 218 noticing and
public outreach.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO (CA)
The City conducts water, wastewater and stormwater studies
every five years to ensure that charges are consistent with
cost of service and conforms with the City’s Propositions.
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for two cycles of
rate studies for the City. The City has a combined wastewater and stormwater system and costs for stormwater are
integrated with wastewater. The City was engaging in a
multi-billion dollar capital improvement program that
would have significant impact on rates. The City has unique
microclimates and RFC analyzed the water usage charac-
teristics of single family and multi-family users to develop a
rate structure that would provide incentives for conservation.
RFC evaluated incentives to encourage low impact development, reviewed stormwater practices to provide credits for
best management practices to reduce stormwater generation.
RFC performed an overhead cost allocation study consistent with federal requirements of OMB Circular A-87 to
assign costs appropriately to different departments in order
to obtain federal reimbursement for projects that are eligible
for federal assistance.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala managed a wastewater rate study to examine
the charges associated with different types of residential and
non-residential customers. The study included a comprehensive review of the City’s revenue requirements and allocation
methodology, review of City’s user classification, a cost of
service analysis, and rate design for City users. Sacramento
is one of the few large Cities in the State that does not meter
residential and a significant number of non-residential customers. The strength and flow allocation to these customers
was revised. The resultant rates were fair and equitable and
met the fiscal needs of the City’s wastewater utility in the context of the City’s overall policy objectives and were designed
for simplicity of administration, cost effective implementation
and ease of communication to customers.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala was Project Manager on studies to develop
rates and rate models for solid waste and wastewater utilities.
The City wanted to have a planning tool in-house to evaluate
what if scenarios, impacts and determine rates for various
customers. The model incorporated many user friendly
features to assist the City update rates and prepare financial plans on an annual basis. Solid waste rates included
non-residential customers based on size of containers and
frequency of collection. Wastewater rates to the 27 subscribing agencies discharging to the City’s wastewater treatment
facilities were also determined. This involved complex calculations and allocations to wastewater loadings, conveyance
distance, etc. Connection or impact fees were also included
in the model. User training, model documentation, regular updates and ongoing service were also included in this
project.
Mr. Pardiwala also served as Project Manager on a wheeling
charges study for the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power. The City was interested in determining the appropriate charges to be levied on various customers that may
wish to use the extra capacity in the City’s system—from
the Los Angeles Aqueduct to the distribution network—to
transfer water.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 18 ]
CITY OF ONTARIO (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager on a water,
wastewater and solid waste rate study. The study included
a comprehensive review of the City of Ontario’s revenue
requirements and allocation methodology, review of user
classifications, a cost of service analysis, and rate design for
City users.
RFC designed tiered water rates, recycled rates and wastewater rates considering IEUA rates. Solid waste rates were
designed to recover costs. RFC provided the City with a
model that is used for planning purposes by the City. The
City has engaged RFC multiple times to update these rates.
NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala was Project Manager for a recycled water rate
study for the District. The District was required to restrict
summer discharge of its wastewater into the river. The
District had made improvements to its treatment plant to
produce recycled water and provided incentives to recycled
water customers to use the water. Agreement with customers were to end within a couple of years and the District
wanted to enlarge the recycled water facilities and enroll new
customers into the recycled water program. The District
wanted to review the economics of the improvements and
determine the impacts resulting from implementing new
recycled water rates. RFC developed a financial and rate
model that considered the new customers and revised rates
and the impact of providing discounted rates on wastewater
customers. The District held meeting with the recycled
water users and obtained input on issues of concern to them.
RFC provided support to the District and evaluated the
results of the surveys conducted to define the rates.
CITY OF REDLANDS (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala has managed several financial projects for
the City of Redlands (City) including water, wastewater and
reclaimed water projects. The studies were conducted with
extensive stakeholder input. The first rate studies involved
significant rate adjustments as well as rate structure adjustments to ensure financial stability, meet debt coverage and
regulatory requirements. The analysis included calculation
of outside-City charges and impact fees. The City received
user-friendly working rate models for future updates. Mr.
Pardiwala assisted the City with State Revolving Fund loans
for reclaimed water and potable water. He helped them find
grants for the reclaimed water project.
JURUPA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for Jurupa
Community Services District (District) in conducting a
[ 19 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
comprehensive water and wastewater rate study in order to
ensure financial sufficiency in the District. The District’s
water rate structure included a monthly service charge and a
four-tiered commodity rate that was applied to all customers
and the current wastewater rate structure includes a base
charge and capital charge based on EDU and a quantity
charge based on the previous year’s winter water usage. The
fixed charges for both water and wastewater were very high
and burdensome to small customers. One of the main goals
of the study was to restructure the water and wastewater rates
to be more equitable and reflect the diversity in the District.
RFC reviewed the District’s customer classification, revenue
requirements, and cost allocation methodology, and recommended appropriate alternative water and wastewater rate
structures that would meet the District’s goals and objectives. Throughout the process, RFC conducted numerous
workshops with the District Board to obtain their input and
feedback to ensure successful implementation. Equity issues
among different customer classes were analyzed to ensure
compliance with Proposition 218. Due to the diversity of
the customers within the District’s service area, the District desired to provide better allocations to customers and
review the implementation of a water budget rate structure.
RFC developed water budget models for both the water and
wastewater rates.
GOLETA WEST SANITARY DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala has been Goleta West Sanitary District’s
(District) financial consultant for more than 10 years. During
that time he has assisted the District with financial planning,
development and financing their replacement and refurbishment program, developing a rate structure, annexation fees,
connection fees, miscellaneous fees, reserves policy development, and other financial issues. The District charges
customers on the tax roll. RFC developed the data to be
included on the tax roll and the District now manages it.
CITY OF PALO ALTO (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala was Project Manager for a study for the City
of Palo Alto (City) to determine the cost of service rates consistent with Proposition 218. The study involved review of
fire service charges, booster pumping rates, strict adherence
to cost of service principles. The study was conducted with the
participation of a citizens’ advisory committee. RFC developed an user friendly rate model, provided City staff training
on use of the model. The proposed rates were implemented
July 1, 2012.
BEAUMONT-CHERRY VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager on a cost of service
water rate study for the Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water Dis-
trict (District). The region was experiencing rapid growth, as
much as 20-30%, and the District wished to ensure that its
rate structure allowed them to recover all appropriate costs,
support the rapid growth, and provide fair and equitable
rates. RFC conducted a cost of service analysis to calculate
rates for different classes of customers. The District’s water
supply in the local groundwater basin was limited and the
basin was in overdraft. As a result, the District was considering recycled water projects and importing water into the
region. Mr. Pardiwala developed system capacity charges for
new customers taking into consideration the new infrastructure needed as well as the additional water supplies needed to
provide service to new and existing customers.
CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS (NV)
Mr. Pardiwala was the Project Manager for the water and
sewer financial planning and rate study conducted for the
City of North Las Vegas (City). At the time, the City had
experienced rapid growth and had a significant amount of
capital projects including construction of their own treatment plant. The City faced many financial challenges at a
time when there were signs of a slowing economy. RFC
conducted a multi-year financial plan that examined various customer growth, capital funding, and rate revenue
assumptions. RFC prepared rate models for both water and
wastewater and trained City staff on their use. The models
provided dashboards for ease of use and decision making.
CITY OF PORTLAND (OR)
The City of Portland (City) wanted a financial planning and
rate model to determine rates for its wholesale and retail
customers. Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for
this study. The City provided wholesale water to 19 agencies
under old agreement that were expiring soon. The City was
finalizing long-term agreements with explicit terms on rate
setting. The City wanted to develop rates consistent with
the new agreement for the wholesale agencies, review rate
structure alternatives for its retail customers, review impacts
and provide flexibility for planning for the next 20 years.
The City’s existing retail rate structure consisted of an
increasing 3-tier rate structure for all customers with fixed
tiers for single family customers and tiers based on the
average usage in the preceding 12-month period for the
remaining customers. The current retail rates applied to all
classes and did not take into account peaking which factors
can vary significantly from class to class. RFC developed
alternative rate structure options for retail customers and
explore the creation of more classes to increase equity and
fairness and encourage conservation. Alternative rate
structures included uniform volume rates, seasonal rates,
increasing and “V” or “U” shaped block rates, and a range
of individualized block rates with cutoffs based on average
account usage, seasonal usage, or customer characteristics.
RFC provided the City with the computer model and provided training and a manual in the user of the model.
In 2012, Mr. Pardiwala managed a bond feasibility study
for the City’s Bureau of Environmental Services. The City
needed to issue bonds for several hundred million dollars to
meet regulatory requirements related to its wastewater and
stormwater systems. RFC met with City staff and reviewed
the CIP, business processes, rates and rate setting procedures, and provided a certificate of parity showing that the
City could meet its coverage requirements under the current
rates so that the City could sell bonds with a good rating.
CLARK COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION DISTRICT (NV)
Mr. Pardiwala is Project Manager for a cost of service study
for the Clark County Water Reclamation District (District)
to help evaluate the current system of rates and charges to
ensure that users were being charged appropriately. The
District has not updated its rate structure system for many
years and the current system based on fixture units is believed
to need restructuring. RFC is managing the sampling and
wastewater flow monitoring from different types of users to
determine the definition of an equivalent dwelling unit and
the flows from different types of users. There are multiple
outreach meetings with member agencies and interested
stakeholders to educate them on the process and to obtain
buy-in.
CITY OF HENDERSON (NV)
Mr. Pardiwala served as Project Manager for the engagement with the City of Henderson (City). In Phase I, RFC
assisted the City in conducting a water and wastewater financial assessment. RFC developed a financial vision which
will ultimately shape the utilities for the next 10 years. As
part of our conceptual design process, RFC recommended
several alternative rate philosophies to be evaluated as part
of Phase II. The Model was also developed to evaluate
certain rate philosophies and user charge structure modifications focused on improving the equitable recovery of costs
from different user classes, legal defensibility of the rates
and system development charges, revenue predictability, and
conservation incentives. RFC developed an allocation or
budget for different meter sizes to ensure that the tiered
rates set up would fairly collect revenues from customers.
RFC updated the City’s financial plan by participating
in the City’s rate implementation process. This included
presentations of final findings and recommendations to City
Council and the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 20 ]
CITY OF TACOMA (WA)
Mr. Pardiwala was Project Manager for a study to develop
financial plans and rate models for the City’s Environmental
Services including wastewater, surface water and solid waste
utilities. The study involved development of user friendly
financial and rate planning models that would allow the
City to update rates on an annual basis, quickly make
changes, and review rates. The model also provided capability to compare the status of the CIP, and actual revenues
and expenses against budgets on a month by month basis.
To make this process easy, the model was integrated with
the City’s SAP and E Builder system. The financial plan
and rates were reviewed with input from the City’s Environmental Services Commission. RFC turned over the models
to the City, provided training and computer manuals in the
use of the models.
Mr. Pardiwala also provided financial planning models to
the City’s water utility, which included user-friendly features and benchmarking tools to maximize improvements
in operations and management.
CITY OF PASADENA (CA)
Mr. Pardiwala was Project Manager for a study for the City
of Pasadena (City) to determine roll-out charges for solid
waste services provided by the City. Certain customers in
the City needed assistance with rolling out their containers
and replacing them again. Mr. Pardiwala analyzed the costs
associated with this service and set up a charge for it.
OTHER RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
»» City of Anaheim (CA) – Water Rate Study
»» City of Atwater (CA) - Water and Wastewater Rate
Study
»» City of Banning (CA) - Recycled Water Revenue
Program
»» City of Brea (CA) - Water Rate Study, Connection Fees
and Related Fees and Charges Study
»» City of Burbank (CA) - Bond Feasibility Study,
Reclaimed Water Study, and Water and Wastewater Rate
Study
»» City of Carlsbad (CA) - Asset Replacement Study and
Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Revenue
Program
»» Casitas Municipal Water District (CA) - Water Rate
Study
»» Castroville Water District (CA) – Water and Wastewater
Rate Study
»» City of Chino (CA) - Valuation Study
»» City of Chowchilla (CA) – Water and Wastewater Rates
Study
»» City of Cloverdale (CA) - Water and Wastewater
[ 21 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
Connection Fees and Rate Study
»» City of Corona (CA) - Water and Wastewater Rate Study
»» El Toro Water District (CA) – Water Budget and
Wastewater Rate Studies and Connection Fees
»» City of Encinitas (CA) - Water and Wastewater Rate
Study
»» City of Escondido (CA) - Valuation Study, Water and
Wastewater Rate Study
»» City of Glendora (CA) - Water and Wastewater Financial
Planning and Rate Study
»» Goleta Water District (CA) – Water and Wastewater
Rates and Connection Fees Studies, Asset Management,
and Financing Plan
»» City of Livingston (CA) – Water, Wastewater and Solid
Waste Rates Study and Litigation Support
»» City of Madera (CA) - Water and Wastewater Rate Study
»» Metropolitan Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (CA)
- Wastewater Valuation Study and Capacity Valuation
Study
»» Olivenhain Municipal Water District (CA) – Water and
Wastewater Financial Planning Studies and Recycled
Water Rate Study
»» Palmdale Water District (CA) – Water Budget Rate
Study
»» City of Poway (CA) – Wastewater Rate Structure
Analysis
»» City of Rialto (CA) – SRF Funding and Water and
Wastewater Rate Study
»» County of San Bernardino (CA) - Water and Wastewater
Rate Study and Connection fees
»» San Diego County Water Authority (CA) - Capacity
Valuation, Rate Analysis, Valuation Study, and Wheeling
Charge Study
»» City of San Fernando (CA) – Water and Wastewater
Rates Study
»» San Gorgonio Pass Water Agency (CA) - Financing Plan
»» City of San Jose (CA) - Sewer Service Related Fees and
Charges
»» City of San Luis Obispo (CA) - Stormwater Financial
Feasibility Study
»» Santa Fe Irrigation District (CA) - Wastewater Treatment
Plant Cost Evaluation, Water Connection Fees Study,
and Water Rate Study and Update
»» City of Santa Monica (CA) - Wastewater Rate Study
»» City of Scottsdale (AZ) - Impact Fee Study
»» City of Springfield (OR) – Wastewater Rates Model
»» Tacoma Public Utilities (WA) - 2008 Business Planning
Assistance and Financial Model
»» City of Upland (CA) - Valuation Study
»» Town of Windsor (CA) - Impact Fee Review, State
Revolving Fund Loan Application Assistance, Water and
Wastewater Connection Fees and Rates Study, and Water
and Water Reclamation Rate Studies
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Utility cost of service
»» Rate structure studies
»» Financial plan studies
»» Economic feasibility studies
»» Conservation rate studies
»» Water budget rate studies
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consul-
tants, Inc.: Senior Consultant
(2008-present)
»» Avery Dennison: Research
Chemist (2004-2008)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Business Adminis-
tration in Finance - California
State University, Los Angeles
(2007)
»» Bachelor of Science in Chemi-
cal Engineering - University of
California, Berkeley (2003)
KHANH PHAN
STAFF CONSULTANT
Senior Consultant (RFC)
PROFILE
Ms. Phan has served as Lead Consultant or Deputy Project Manager on numerous water and wastewater studies including rate, cost of service, reserve policy,
financial planning, connection fee, conservation rate, and water budget rate
studies. Her specific experience includes projects for the following utilities in
California: Alameda County Water District, El Toro Water District, Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District, Mesa Consolidated Water District, Mojave
Water Agency, Western Municipal Water District, Yorba Linda Water District,
and the Cities of Camarillo, Glendora, Huntington Beach, Riverside, San Clemente, and Santa Cruz. She possesses strong analytical and management skills
acquired from her background, education, and experience. Ms. Phan has advanced
computer skills and is an excellent modeler. Ms. Phan also co-authored a chapter
entitled, “Understanding Conservation and Efficiency Rate Structures,” for the
Fourth Edition of the industry guidebook, Water and Wastewater Finance and
Pricing: The Changing Landscape.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
In 2011, East Orange County Water District (District) engaged RFC in several
studies including water budget analysis, and cost of service analysis for its retail
water services. To convey the concept of water efficiency use, the District asked
RFC to develop a Water Budget Model to evaluate different policy options associated with setting the efficiency benchmark for residential water use within the
District’s retail service areas. In the same year, the District requested RFC’s
assistance in conducting cost of service analysis and developing a Rate Model to
be updated annually by the District staff to calculate new rates. Ms. Phan was
the lead analyst and modeler in all engagements with the District.
ALAMEDA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
In early 2012, Alameda County Water District (District) commissioned RFC
to conduct a financial plan study including developing a 25-year Financial Plan
Model (Model) to assess risk of fluctuations in water supply demand, capital
improvement plan scenarios, and to evaluate the potential financial impacts. As
Lead Consultant, Ms. Phan developed the customized Model which featured
a scenario analysis tool and a user-friendly dashboard. This Model was instrumental in effectively communicating the financial impacts to stakeholders. RFC
presented the Model to the District Board to show the District’s financial health
under various scenarios related to water supply, water sales, and expenditures.
In the same year, the District retained RFC to conduct the financial impact
analysis of the outcomes of the union negotiation. As Deputy Project Manager,
Ms. Phan worked closely with District staff to develop the Union Negotiation
Module (Module) to be used in the Union Negotiations. In early January 2013,
the Module was used to assess the financial impacts on the District of the union
negotiated contracts for labor and benefits. Ms. Phan also enhanced the Model
with additional features including a scenario manager, which enabled users to
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 22 ]
save and compare various scenarios within the Financial Plan
Module and Rate Module to determine the new rates and
customer impacts resulting from the cost of service analyses
and the financial plan.
Since 2012, the District has annually retained RFC for support on updating the financial plan and other financial and
rate analyses. Ms. Phan has been the Lead Consultant on
various engagement with the District.
In late 2014, the District again retained RFC to conduct
the long-term financial plan and cost of service analysis to
develop rates that: would maintain financial sufficiency; are
consistent with the District’s policies; comply with general
cost of service principles; and are in compliance with Proposition 218 requirements. During the course of the study,
the financial plan model (FPM) considered many different
drought scenarios and different financial outcomes. The
scenarios included normal non-drought conditions, mild
drought conditions ending in one year (2015 drought
only), medium drought conditions ending after two years
(medium), and severe drought conditions spanning three
years (extended dry period). In addition, as part of the Study,
RFC evaluated and presented two options of bi-monthly
fixed service charges to the Board of Directors during the
December 2014 Public Workshop. One of the goals when
developing a fixed charge is to better align fixed revenues
with fixed costs and align commodity revenues with variable
costs. The drought surcharge, which was developed in the
drought rate study and adopted in July of 2014, will continue
to mitigate the effects of reduced demand until the provisions of the Drought Surcharge Sunset criterion are met. As
Lead Consultant, Ms. Phan developed an interactive Rate
Model to conduct various water rate scenarios and evaluate
the associated customer impacts for each of the rate alternatives to assist the District in making informed decisions.
parcel data and ultimately determining the parcel area and
landscape area of each parcel to be used in water budget rate
design and in the implementation of the new rate structure.
Ms. Phan is responsible for developing a water budget rate
model to evaluate policy options, to assess the associated
customer impacts. A variance form for individual water
budget adjustments is also provided to the District as an
implementation assistance tool.
The District has engaged RFC annually to assist in its water
and wastewater rate updates. In addition, the District also
commissioned RFC to evaluate the financial impacts of the
Recycled Water expansion in May 2012. Ms. Phan developed an advanced, user-friendly Financial Plan Model with
easy to understand graphics to communicate the financial
impacts and the sensitivity analyses of the expansion on the
Water and Sewer Enterprises. The Report was submitted
to the District in July 2012.
To address the recent severe and ongoing drought in
California, the District engaged RFC in a Drought Rate
Study to determine the indoor and outdoor drought factor
adjustments necessary to encourage conservation among its
residential and irrigation customers and penalty rates for
commercial customers to achieve the required reductions in
consumption under increasing levels of drought. As part of
the Study, RFC conducted financial impact analyses on revenues, expenditures, net revenues for each drought stage if
1) customers continue to consume at normal (non-drought)
levels or 2) customers reduce consumption by the amount
required. As lead analyst, Ms. Phan developed interactive
excel Model to conduct financial impact analyses for each
of the projected drought stages.
EL TORO WATER DISTRICT (CA)
In 2009, RFC completed a comprehensive cost of service
study for El Toro Water District (District). Ms. Phan is
responsible for developing a rate model to examine new
water and sewer rates for the District to reflect the increased
water cost from Metropolitan Water District of Orange
County and the increased operating costs for the District’s
water and sewer systems. The model analyzes projected revenues, budgeted O&M costs, cost of service, the District’s
financial plan and customer impacts as a result of proposed
rate increases.
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
RFC has been assisting Western Municipal Water District
(District) with several projects including the development
of a water budget rate structure for its retail customers, the
development of a long-term financial plan for each cost
center with¬in the District, a review and analysis of the
annual water rate update, and a water budget web calculator
to be used as a public outreach tool. As a Lead Consultant,
Ms. Phan consulted the District in the development of an
equitable and defensible water budget structure for retail
customers for their two cost centers – Riverside Treated Service and Murrieta Treated Service. She performed thorough
analyses on usage, revenue and customer impacts associated
with proposed water budget rates.
In 2010, Ms. Phan completed the water budget rate study
scheduled to be implemented on July 1st, 2010. This involves
integrating the District’s account data with the assessor’s
In 2010, RFC assisted the District in its annual water rate
update study to ensure revenue sufficiency to recover the
increasing costs of imported water and to en¬hance revenue
[ 23 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
stability by designing a rate structure that will reduce the
District’s dependency on property tax to fund its operations.
As Lead Consultant, Ms. Phan thoroughly analyzed the
customer impacts of different proposed rates and levels of
property tax dependency. The proposed rates were approved
by District Board in May 2010.
different customer classes and determining landscape area
caps for residential accounts and on usage, revenue and customer impacts associated with proposed water budget rates.
She assisted the District in preparation of a presentation of
the study results to District Board in order to facilitate their
informed policy decision process.
In order to better financially manage all 14 enterprises, the
District needed a compre¬hensive, yet user-friendly financial
plan model which can be used to facilitate com¬munications
between staff and the District’s Board of Directors about
the financial implications of different financial policies and
capital projects. In 2011, as a lead consultant, Ms. Phan
developed a customized 30-year Financial Plan Model
(Model) with the ability to conduct scenario analyses. The
interactive dashboard of the Model displays the Long-Term
Financial Plan of the 14 enterprises in graphical format.
A CIP manager was de¬veloped to save a customized CIP
scenario to be used for financial implication evaluations.
The built-in scenario manager enabled the Model users to
save, load, and compare the results of different assumptions,
inputs and CIP scenarios. Cus¬tomized financial reports in
preset printed format can be generated at individual enterprise level and at aggregate level for the whole District. The
District has engaged RFC several times after the completion
of the Model for technical support and model enhancements
to accommodate for arising issues.
In December 2009, RFC assisted the District in conducting New Water Demand Offset Fee Study as part of the
connection fees assessed to new connections added to the
District’s water system. Due to recent regulatory drought in
California, the District declared Stage 3 – Water Warning –
under the District’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan. The
New Water Demand Offset Program is a form of funding
conservation measures that will help to create sustainable,
zero water footprint new development. In addition to the
conventional capital facility fees, the new developments will
also pay fees called New Water Demand Offset Fees to fund
the conservation and recycled program in order to generate
potable water savings in the existing system to support new
water demand generated by new developments. Ms. Phan
assisted the District in calculating the New Water Demand
Offset Program Cost and the New Water Demand Offset
Fees and documenting the nexus between the fees and the
program cost to ensure the compliance with the requirements specified in California Government Code Section
66000-66008 or AB 1600.
In 2012, the District engaged RFC to develop the connection fees for its retail water, wastewater, and recycled water
services. The District updated its Master Plans for Retail
Water in Riverside service area, Riverside Recycled Water,
and for Wastewater in 2009, but has not incorporated them
into the current connection fees. In addition, the District
currently does not assess connection fees for recycled water
and desired to develop one to recover the capital cost to
support the associated growth. Ms. Phan developed the
connection fees Model to evaluate different policy options
related to allocations of tertiary recycled water treatment
values to potable, wastewater, and recycled water and to calculate the connection fees for retail water, wastewater, and
recycled water based on the framework established through
close collaboration with District staff.
The District’s current water capital facilities financing program estimates $323 million to be spent by the end of 2030.
Due to the significant amount of capital spending expected,
in November 2011, the District commissioned RFC to evaluate its existing capacity fee methodology and update the fee
to ensure that new customers pay an equitable share when
joining the District’s system. Ms. Phan, a lead consultant,
developed the Capacity Fees Model to calculate proposed
capacity fees based on the updated asset values and adjusted
Capital Improvement Plan values (from the 2005 Water
Facilities Master Plan Update), which will benefit future
development, and estimated incremental demand. Utilizing
the methodologies used in the 2011 Water Budget Update
Study, RFC estimated the yearly demand for a residential user with a ¾-in meter (or 1 equivalent dwelling unit,
EDU) for both divisions. Meter equivalence ratios based
on AWWA hydraulic capacities (AWWA M6) are used to
project water demand estimates for customers of varying
meter sizes. The results were summarized in the Water
Capacity Fee Study Report and presented to the Board in
March 2012.
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT (CA)
In 2009, RFC conducted a Water Budget Rate Study for
the Rancho California Water District (District). As a Lead
Consultant, Ms. Phan assisted the District as they established an equitable and defensible water budget structure
for residential and irrigation customers for both Rancho and
Santa Rosa Divisions. She performed thorough analyses
on different methodologies of allocating water sources to
In 2012 and 2014, the District again engaged RFC to
update the Water Budget Rate Models to address arising
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 24 ]
issues and challenges. For the past several years, due to
hotter climate, the efficient outdoor water sales exceeded
projected sales, and the District had experience inadequate
cost recovery for marginal water supply costs. In the 2014
Study, RFC updated the Water Budget Rate Model to fine
tune the water allocation factors and the allocation of water
supply to projected sales in tiers to address better align available water supply and water demand in tiers and to reduce
the risk exposure of purchasing more expensive water for
Tiers 1 and 2 sales.
CITY OF CAMARILLO (CA)
In 2011, City of Camarillo (City) engaged RFC to conduct
a comprehensive water and wastewater rate study to independently assess and evaluate existing water and wastewater
rates for compliance with industry standards and California
regulations, and to develop a financial plan to ensure financial sufficiency while minimizing rate impacts to the greatest
degree possible. Ms Phan was responsible to develop the
Water and Wastewater Rate Models with Dashboard functionality for scenario analyses for alternative capital financing
and to facilitate communication and decision makings with
City Council. The Study included a comprehensive review
of the water and wastewater enterprises’ revenue requirements, a review of the City’s user classification and usage
patterns, a cost of service analysis, the development of water
and wastewater connection fees, the designing of water and
wastewater rates and the analysis of customer impacts along
with a rate survey of neighboring agencies. The City had
significant capital improvement projects scheduled in the
immediate future (FY 2012 to FY 2014); to smooth out
customer impacts while sufficiently maintaining the utility’s
systems, RFC developed water and wastewater financial plan
Models to evaluate different CIP scenarios, financing options
and associated financial impacts. RFC recommended water
and wastewater rate schedules for a two-year period effective
January 2012 and 2013, which was approved by the City
Council in November 2011.
Since 2012, the City commissioned RFC to conduct the
annual rate update study to assess the financial health of
the Water and Wastewater Enterprises after its rate adoption in January 2012. Ms. Phan updated the Water and
Wastewater Financial Plan Models with new key financial
information, including operating and capital budgets. The
results were communicated annually with the City Council.
CITY OF SANTA CRUZ (CA)
City of Santa Cruz Water Department (Department) is
currently providing water services to population of approximately 60,000. Increasing operation and maintenance costs
along with projected intensive capital program in the next
[ 25 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
ten years and volatile water sales in recent years has driven
the Department to develop financial policies to mitigate
potential risks and to establish sound financial management
practices, and conduct a long-range financial plan to ensure
financial sufficiency and sustainability of the Department’s
water system. In 2012, the Department commissioned RFC
to develop the Financial Plan Model as a tool to access the
financial implications of different financial policies. As lead
consultant, Ms Phan was responsible for developing the
custom-built Financial Plan Model and prepared a White
Paper summarizing the recommended financial policies for
the Department.
CITY OF GLENDORA (CA)
In 2012, to promote water efficiency within its service area,
the City of Glendora (City) commissioned RFC to evaluate
the benefits of water budget rates and conduct the Water
Budget Rate Study to develop the water budget tiered rates
for its single family residential customers. As lead consultant, Ms Phan developed a custom-built Water Budget Rate
Model to evaluate different water budget policy options
associating with weather data and landscape area definitions.
In addition, the City’s account data and the Assessor’s parcel
data were integrated to retrieve the lot size and other parcel
data relevant to be used to determine the landscape areas for
single family residential parcel. The Model also included
the Rate Module to calculate the resulting water rates for
both water budget and non-water budget customers based on
the revenue requirements determined by the City’s budget
and cost of service analyses. The Water Budget Allocation
Model was presented to the Water Commission in October 2012 along with the results from the billing system
assessments and cost and benefits analyses of water budget
rate implementation. The Water Budget Rate Model was
presented to the Water Commission in the summer of 2013.
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Starting 2010, RFC is currently assisting Yorba Linda Water
District in conducting the cost of service and conservation
rate study for the water enterprise. This study involves
development of the long-term financial plan, evaluation of
different conservation rate structures, including inclining
tiered and water budget tiered rate structures, review and
design of new defensible and equitable rate structure that
enhances revenue stability, ensures financial sufficiency and
promotes conservation and water use efficiency. Ms. Phan
is responsible for developing the financial plan and water
budget rate models to evaluate policy options, to assess the
associated customer impacts. The District has requested
RFC assistance in its rate updates since the initial engagement and as deputy project manager, Ms. Phan was the key
personnel assisting the District.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»» City of Banning (CA) – Water Rate Study and
Connection Fees
»» Clark County (NV) – Wastewater Rate Study
»» Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District – Financial
Plan Study
»» City of Escondido (CA) – Water Budget Evaluation
»» Goleta West Sanitary District (CA) – Reserve Policy
Study and Financial Plan Study
»» City of Huntington Beach (CA) – Water Budget Rate
Study
»» Jurupa Community Services District (CA) – Water Rate
Study, Financial Plan and Water Budget Rate Study
»» La Cañada Irrigation District (CA) – Cost of Service
Study
»» City of Livingston (CA) – Water Rate Study
»» Mesa Consolidated Water District – Financial Plan
Study
»» Mojave Water Agency – Financial Plan Study
»» Olivenhain Municipal Water District – Wastewater
Financial Plan
»» Palmdale Water District (CA) – Water Budget Rate
Study
»» City of Redlands (CA) – Valuation Study
»» City of Riverside (CA) – Water Capital Facility Fees
»» City of San Clemente – Water, Wastewater and Recycled
Water Financial Plan Study and Rate Update
»» City of San Diego (CA) – Water Rate Study, Water
Budget Evaluation
»» San Dieguito Water District (CA) – Water Rate Study
»» City of Signal Hill – Financial Plan Study and Water
Lease Market Analysis
»» City of Simi Valley – Wastewater Rate Study
»» South Coast Water District (CA) – Water Budget
Feasibility Study
»» City of Thousand Oaks – Water and Wastewater
Financial Plan and Rate Study
»» City of Torrance (CA) – Cost of Service Study
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 26 ]
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Utility cost of service and rate
structure studies
»» Financial planning studies
»» State revolving fund
assistance
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consultants,
Inc.: Senior Consultant
(2009-present); Staff
Consultant (2007-2009)
»» Merati Economic Group:
Economics Analyst (20062007)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Business
Administration - California
State University, Los Angeles
(2007)
»» Bachelor of Science, Business
Administration – California
State University, Los Angeles
(2006)
HANNAH PHAN
STAFF CONSULTANT
Senior Consultant (RFC)
PROFILE
Ms. Phan has served as a consultant and/or lead consultant on numerous water,
wastewater, and recycled water rate studies, cost of service studies, connection fee
studies, and valuation studies. Her specific experience includes projects for the
Cities of San Diego, Ventura, Palo Alto, Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Anaheim,
Ontario, Escondido, Redlands, and Banning, the Goleta West Sanitary District
and Carpinteria Sanitary District, and the City of North Las Vegas, Nevada and
Tacoma Environmental Services Department in Washington. Ms. Phan has an
MBA and is an experienced modeler with strong analytical skills.
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS (CA)
The City of Beverly Hills (City) engaged RFC to develop a rate and financial planning model that would be used to review customer classes, evaluate
alternative rate structures and to provide more detailed forecasts to assist in the
preparation of updating rates in future years.
The City’s water rate structure consisted of a three-tiered increasing block water
rate structure with no differentiation among customer types. RFC modeled
numerous alternative rate structures and reviewed customer and revenue impacts
before recommending that the City modify its current three tiered rate structure
to include a fourth tier that targets large irrigation usage. The City’s wastewater
rates were restructured to more equitably recover the costs of servicing the different customer classes to conform to EPA regulations. RFC continues to provide
updates to the City so that the enterprise funds can continue to be financially
stable. Ms. Phan assisted in conducting the pricing objectives to determine the
objectives most important to the City’s stakeholders and developed the water and
wastewater rate models to determine the appropriate rates and rate structure for
the City’s utility services.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO (CA)
RFC assisted the City of San Diego (City) in conducting a water, wastewater,
and recycled water rate study to evaluate the costs of providing utility services
and the rates to charge customers. The study included a comprehensive review of
the City’s revenue requirements and allocation methodology, review of the City’s
user classification, an analysis of cost-of-service and rate design for City users.
The rate structure was modified to provide a more equitable sharing of costs
consistent with regulatory requirements. The recycled water rate study involved
evaluation of various scenarios involving capital projects with increased sales,
cost sharing between water and wastewater, phasing in rates, repayment of past
costs incurred by water to fund the recycled water program. Ms. Phan assisted
in building the rate models, preparing the scenarios and conducting economic
analyses of the alternative scenarios.
[ 27 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
CITY OF VENTURA (CA)
RFC recently completed a water, wastewater, and recycled
water cost of service and rate study for the City of Ventura
(City). The City had not updated its rate structure in 20
years. Additionally, the City was under a cease and desist
order that required the City to carry out improvements
estimated at more than $55 million, and which the City
wanted to start funding to mitigate impacts. The study
included a comprehensive review of the City’s revenue
requirements and allocation methodology, review of the
City’s user classification, usage patterns, a cost of service
analysis, and rate design for City users. RFC developed
long-range financial plans so that the water and wastewater
utilities could be financially stable and save costs in the
long run. We also assisted the City with developing different water and wastewater rate alternatives with various
scenarios as well as calculating outside-city rates. Ms. Phan
served as the lead consultant for this project, responsible
for building the rate models, preparing the scenarios and
conducting economic analyses of the alternative scenarios.
CITY OF ANAHEIM (CA)
The City of Anaheim (City) engaged RFC to conduct a
water cost of service rate study. To address the financial
objectives of the City and identify a water rate structure
that is fair and equitable while sufficiently recover the costs
of providing water service, RFC developed a water rate and
financial planning model to calculate and forecast cost justified water rates appropriate to recover the operating and
capital costs of the wastewater enterprise over a twenty (20)
year planning period.
NAPA SANITATION DISTRICT (CA)
Ms. Phan served as lead analyst for a recycled water rate
study for the Napa Sanitation District (District). The
District was required to restrict summer discharge of its
wastewater into the river. The District made improvements
to its treatment plant to produce recycled water and then
provided incentives to customers to use the recycled water.
The agreement with customers was ending in two years, but
the District wanted to enlarge the recycled water facilities
and enroll new customers into the recycled water program.
The District also wanted to review the improvements and
determine the impact of the new recycled water rates. RFC
developed a financial and rate model that considered the
new customers and revised rates and the impact of providing
discounted rates on wastewater customers. The District held
a meeting with the recycled water users and obtained input
on issues of concern to them. RFC provided support to the
District and evaluated the results of the conducted surveys
to define the rates.
CASTAIC LAKE WATER AGENCY (CA)
Ms. Phan served as lead analyst for a financial plan wholesale water rate study for the Agency. As part of the project,
RFC developed a comprehensive financial plan that evaluated
various financial alternatives to minimize financial risks to
the Agency. The Agency received a significant portion of
its revenue stream from property tax, which it used to fund
capital improvement projects and costs related to its Buena
Vista/ Rosedale Rio Bravo (BV/RRB) water supply. The
current wholesale water rate only recovered operating costs
of the system. The Agency was concerned that property tax
revenue would significantly decrease in the future, which
would severely impact its operations and require significant
rate increases. Thus, RFC analyzed several alternatives to
gradually fund more of the BV/RRB costs from the wholesale
water rate so that it wouldn’t be as dependent on property
tax revenues. RFC also reviewed and evaluated numerous
alternative wholesale water rate structures to enhance revenue
stability and promote conjunctive water use in the Santa Clarita Valley among the four purveyors within the system. Since
the current wholesale water rate was 100% variable, one of the
objectives of the Agency was to enhance revenue stability by
incorporating a fixed charge in its wholesale rate structure to
ensure recovery of a portion of its fixed costs. RFC presented
four rate structure alternatives to the Board, and the Agency
implemented a fixed and variable rate structure in which the
fixed costs were recovered based on each purveyor’s previous
three-year average of total water demand.
CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA (CA)
Ms. Phan assisted the City in conducting a financial plan
and rate study for its water and wastewater enterprises as
the lead analyst. The City had expressed some concerns
about financial stability and anticipated significant capital
expenses associated with water and sewer line replacement
in the upcoming years, as well as necessary improvements to
meet state regulations. As a part of the financial plan development process, RFC evaluated the City’s existing accounts
and consumption patterns as well as its existing rate structure to evaluate and project revenues. These revenues were
compared to existing and projected revenue requirements,
including operating and capital expenses as well as existing
debt service obligations. The results of the study included a
financial plan dashboard which allowed the City to evaluate various financial plan scenarios, including the necessary
levels of revenue adjustments required and capital funding
options available in order to meet its required coverage ratios
and target reserve balances.
CITY OF PALO ALTO (CA)
The City of Palo Alto (City) engaged RFC to conduct a
water cost of service and rate study. The study included a
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 28 ]
comprehensive review of the City’s revenue requirements and
allocation methodology, review of the City’s user classification, usage patterns, a cost of service analysis, and rate design
for City users. The study also included a review of the peaking
characteristics of different customer classes, an analysis of the
master-metered MFR customers, and a review of separate
charge for higher elevations customers. RFC conducted the
study with input from the Utilities Advisory Commission
made up of City residents. Ms. Phan assisted in conducting
the cost of service analysis and customer impacts.
OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Ms. Phan assisted the Olivenhain Municipal Water District
(District) in conducting a water financial plan study and a
recycled water rate study to determine the recycled water
rates charged to customers. The water financial planning
model was developed to assist the District in evaluating different financing alternatives to minimize rate impacts and
ensure financial stability. The water model was effectively
used in Board meetings and presentations to evaluate the
impacts of various scenarios. The recycled water rate study
was conducted to determine the recycled water rates charged
to customers given that the District obtains recycled water
from four different sources: the City of San Diego, Vallecitos Water District, Rancho Santa Fe Community Services
District, and the 4S Regional Recycled Water System. The
existing agreements defined the costs of different sources of
recycled water to the District. To address all of those issues
and concerns, RFC developed a recycled water financial and
rate model to determine the costs of providing service and
the required revenue to be collected from customers. In
addition, the model is built to evaluate when the District is
able to take over the 4S Regional Recycled Water System,
as stated in the agreement with the developer.
GOLETA WEST SANITARY DISTRICT (CA)
The Goleta West Sanitary District (District) was evaluating several alternatives regarding constructing their own
wastewater treatment plant and expanding the current
facility at Goleta Sanitary District, where the District has
been sending their wastewater for treatment. RFC built a
financial planning model for the District to find the most
economically effective option. Furthermore, the District
engaged RFC in conducting a miscellaneous fee study to
evaluate the current fee structures to better represent the
cost of service. Ms. Phan assisted in conducting economic
analyses of the alternatives and developing the miscellaneous
fee model for the District.
TACOMA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (WA)
RFC is currently conducting a comprehensive wastewater,
surface water, and solid waste financial plan and cost of ser-
[ 29 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
vice study for Tacoma Environmental Services (Tacoma).
A key objective of the project is to provide Tacoma with
a financial model that can be linked with the SAP system
so that future annual updates can be automatic. The model
also has ability to conduct sensitivity analyses on several
different issues, such as debt refinancing, varying levels of
increases in assessments costs, etc. The study also included
a long-range financial plan to ensure financial stability for
all three utilities. Ms. Phan served as the lead consultant
on this project, responsible for building the rate models,
preparing presentations and conducting sensitivity analyses.
OTHER RELEVANT PROJECTS
»» City of Banning (CA) – Water, Wastewater, and Recycled
Water Rate and Connection Fees Study
»» Beaumont-Cherry Valley Water District (CA) – Water
Rate Study
»» Carpinteria Sanitary District (CA) – Wastewater Rate
Study
»» Clark County Water Reclamation District (NV) – Sewer
Cost of Service Study
»» City of Escondido (CA) – Water and Wastewater Rate
and Fees and Connection Fees Study, and Water Budget
Study
»» Jurupa Community Services District (CA) – Water and
Wastewater Rate Study
»» City of North Las Vegas (NV) – Water and Wastewater
Rate Studies
»» City of Ontario (CA) – Water, Wastewater, and Solid
Waste Rate Studies
»» City of Redlands (CA) – Water, Wastewater and
Connection Fees Cost of Service Study
»» City of Santa Barbara (CA) – Water and Wastewater
Rate Study
»» City of Santa Monica (CA) – Wastewater Cost of Service
Study
»» Tacoma Water Department (WA) – Water Financial
Plan Study
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Utility cost of service and rate
structure studies
»» Conservation rate studies
»» Economic feasibility studies
»» Wastewater rate studies
»» Capital recovery/Capacity fee studies
»» Survey research of water and
wastewater utility characteristics and
rates
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.:
Senior Consultant (2014-present)
»» APTwater, Inc. (Now Ultura): Project
Manager (2011-2014)
»» PBS&J (Now ATKINS): Project
Manager – Utility Finance (2005-2011)
»» Earth Tech (now AECOM): Senior
Project Manager (2004-2005)
»» Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (now ARCADIS):
Consultant (2002-2003)
»» National Parks Conservation
Association – Business Plan Initiative:
Business Plan Consultant (2000)
»» U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – New
England Division: Project Manager
(1995-1999)
»» Geophex, Limited: Graduate Research
Assistant (1994)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Business Administration
- University of Southern California
(2001)
»» Master of Science in Environmental
Engineering - University of
Massachusetts (1995)
»» Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering - University of
Massachusetts (1994)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
»» American Water Works Association
STEVE GAGNON, PE
STAFF CONSULTANT
Senior Consultant
PROFILE
Mr. Gagnon has 15 years of experience in financial analysis environmental
engineering. He has worked for leading engineering consultants as well as
the federal government. His broad range of experience includes water and
wastewater pricing studies, capacity fees and utility valuations. His specific
experience includes water and wastewater rate studies for the City of Anaheim, La Habra Heights County Water District, Rowland Water District,
Walnut Valley Water District, Sweetwater Authority, Helix Water District
and Otay Water District. He has also performed strategic financial analysis of water sourcing alternatives and costing of ground water remediation
alternatives, asset inventory and condition assessments, utility performance
metrics, earned value analysis, and Superfund remediation.
UTILITY RATE STUDIES AND
LONG-RANGE PLANNING EXPERIENCE
CITY OF ANAHEIM (CA)
Mr. Gagnon prepared a commercial and residential wastewater rate study
for the City of Anaheim (City). The proposed rate structure was based
on water consumption to replace the antiquated structure based on the
number of toilets. Proper water use and wastewater return to sewer analysis is required to ensure proper revenue generation for the City.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO (CA)
Mr. Gagnon prepared integrated financial models for a landmark study for
the County of San Diego. The study will not only be updating the sewer
user, capacity, and annexation fees for the nine dependent sewer districts
but will also include the economic analysis of creating one “super sanitation
district”. Long-range financial plans will be prepared for all of the districts
as well as the super district including 10 years of operational and capital
costs.
WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon prepared a long-range financial plan to help ensure the Western Municipal Water District’s (District) financial health. Based on the
District’s five-year CIP, inflationary water rate adjustments, and reserve
policies, the plan showed that a debt issue was needed to execute the CIP
and maintain adequate reserves.
RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon created water conservation based sewer rates to complement
the Rainbow Municipal Water District’s (District) conservation based
water rate structure. These rates will be based on the actual water usage
of each customer within the District. In addition, appropriate sewage
strengths will be incorporated into the District’s sewer user rates.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 30 ]
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon performed the Walnut Valley Water District’s (District) first professional rate study which included
updating the rate structure. Mr. Gagnon created a threetier residential rate structure to help decrease discretionary
consumption and ensure the District avoids or reduces water
purchase surcharges from the Metropolitan Water District.
He presented his findings to District staff and the District’s
Board of Directors.
FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT (CA)
With water shortages looming in Southern California, this
progressive water and sewer district asked for help creating
water conservation-based sewer rates to complement their
conservation based water structure. Mr. Gagnon created
rates based on the actual water usage of each customer
within the Fallbrook Public Utility District (District). In
addition, appropriate sewage strengths were incorporated
into the District’s sewer user rates.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
The Otay Water District (District) performs an update to
their capacity and annexation fees every five years. In this
update they changed their capacity fee from an incremental
fee based on future costs to a combined fee structure using
replacement costs less depreciation. They are also revised
their annexation fee to recover taxes and availability charges
paid by existing users who are currently inside the District’s
boundaries. In addition they added a new water supply fee
to recover the expansion costs of their water system. This
is a new fee that addresses the issue of new development
bringing their own water supply or pay for offsets.
Mr. Gagnon was also the lead economist on a fast track
study to assist the District in adding further conservation
incentives into their potable and reclaimed water user rates.
Specifically he added rate blocks into their non-residential
and landscaping user rate structures based on specific base
extra capacity cost allocations per user class. In addition, he
assisted the District in the preparation of a drought/shortage
rate structure that overlays their new conservation rate structure. This drought rate structure is based on the guidelines
provided by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California and the San Diego County Water Authority.
ROWLAND WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon updated the Rowland Water District’s (District) water rates for the second time. The District had
several concerns for the most recent study which included
a large debt issue for a recycled water system as well as staff
increases and wholesale water rate increases. The model
helped the district size its debt issue by performing a rate
sensitivity analysis to the size of the debt issue.
[ 31 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
SWEETWATER AUTHORITY
WATER RATE STUDY (CA)
Mr. Gagnon recently restructured Sweetwater Authority’s
(Authority) water rates resulting in customer bills that are
more proportional to consumption and reducing the monthly
bill for low use customers. He also prepared drought water
rates to help the Authority remain financially sound during
periods of drought induced decreased water consumption.
OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon created a drought rate model to help the
Olivenhain Municipal Water District (District) develop a
drought rate ordinance. The model calculated commodity
rate adjustments for four drought stages. It allowed for customer voluntary cutbacks in consumption as well as cutbacks
due to higher water prices using the price elasticity of water.
The model will help ensure the District maintains adequate
revenue in times of drought.
Mr. Gagnon helped the District update their wastewater
rates and developed a customized model for its unique rate
structure. The District’s residential rates are a flat charge
per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and the commercial
rate structure includes a service charge per EDU and a
variable rate based on measured water consumption.
Mr. Gagnon also prepared valuation calculations for the
system capacity required for update of water and wastewater
connection and annexation fees for the District. The analysis
showed that the District would benefit by changing capacity
fee calculation methodologies from a growth method to a
combined method, thereby imposing less restrictions on the
use of capacity fee revenue.
Mr. Gagnon modeled the long-term cost of several different
water sources for the District. Options included purchasing
treated water, expanding their water treatment plant and
purchasing untreated water from the Metropolitan Water
District or partnering with other local agencies to desalinate
ocean water. The model contained many variable inputs to
allow “what-if ” scenario analysis. Although purchasing
treated water was the least costly option, the authority favored
plant expansion due to other benefits such as reliability of
water supply.
CITY OF POWAY (CA)
Mr. Gagnon completely rebuilt the City of Poway’s water
and wastewater rate models to reflect the latest rate setting
practices.
HELIX WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon created an economic model to add life-line and
a water waster tier to the Helix Water District’s (District)
three-tier rate structure. In addition, budget-based water
rates were created for all irrigation accounts. The District
is transitioning slowly to budget-based rates due to staffing
limitations. In 2010 they will implement budget-based rates
for all commercial accounts.
Mr. Gagnon also performed all of the economic modeling in
the preparation of the District’s first Capacity Fee Study. The
capacity fee was designed to collect a buy-in portion based
on replacement costs of the District’s current water system
and the incremental cost of adding a new water supply, the
El Monte Valley Ground Water Recharge project.
CITY OF CORONADO (CA)
Mr. Gagnon is helping restructure the City of Coronado’s
wastewater rates from a flat parcel-based fee for residential
users to one with a consumption-based charge and a fixed
charge.
CITY OF LEMON GROVE (CA)
Mr. Gagnon helped update the commercial and residential
wastewater rates for the City of Lemon Grove. The rate
structure included 20 different user classes for residential,
commercial, and institutional customers.
JULIAN AND PINE VALLEY
SANITATION DISTRICTS (CA)
Mr. Gagnon updated the wastewater rates and connection
fees for both sanitation districts. The wastewater fees had
not been updated for several years in one district and over
15 years in the other necessitating large rate increases. He
developed a few different scenarios which included postponing CIP projects or lowering reserve balances, to ease
ratepayers into higher rates.
SAN ANTONIO WATER SYSTEM (TX)
Mr. Gagnon prepared a sewer impact fee economic model and
study for the City of San Antonio. This included a valuation
of the system’s facilities using several asset based approaches.
Ultimately the total net book value without depreciation was
selected as the basis for the valuation of the System’s assets. In
addition an equity residual model was prepared that included
the allocation of the present value of past and future debt
service payments. The study also analyzed a number of impact
fee structures to determine the most fair and equitable fee.
LA HABRA HEIGHTS COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon assisted with the update in water user rates,
capacity charges, and long-range financial plan for the La
Habra Heights County Water District (District). The 2001
study set the District’s user rates for five years and expired
in 2005. The District had recently completed an updated
Water Master Plan and wished to incorporate the new cost
of replacement capital facilities for the next ten years into
their long-range financial plan and user rates.
CITY OF LA HABRA (CA)
Mr. Gagnon helped prepare the City of La Habra’s (City)
first professional sewer user rate study. This study followed
industry standards and an EPA approved rate structure. The
City plans to create a formal enterprise fund for their sewer
utility to properly finance their sewer operations and maintenance. He developed the long-range financial plan modeled
year-end cash reserves to ensure execution of the City’s $21
million capital improvement program and to fund operations
and maintenance.
CITY OF FULLERTON (CA)
Mr. Gagnon conducted a field audit to determine appropriate return to sewer flows as well as fats, oils and greases
surcharge rates for the top 50 industrial water customers in
the City of Fullerton.
TOWN OF QUARTZSITE (AZ)
Mr. Gagnon performed a third party rate review of a
recently completed water and wastewater rate study for the
Town of Quartzsite (Town). The Town is concerned with
insuring that their winter RV population is paying their fair
share of the water and sewer expenses.
TOWN OF PARKER (AZ)
Mr. Gagnon updated the Town of Parker’s (Town) water
rates. One of the Town’s main concerns was the fairness and
equity of water system cost distribution given the Town’s
large population of Native Americans who do not pay sales
or utility taxes yet benefit from Town parks and other Town
amenities. He also helped the Town establish operating and
capital reserves.
CITY OF WEBSTER (TX)
Mr. Gagnon is constructing a stormwater model for the City
of Webster (City). The rates are based on the impervious
surface of each parcel. The City plans using water meters
to bill customers.
CITY OF NORMAN (OK)
Mr. Gagnon is constructing a stormwater rate model for the
City of Norman. The model is constructed in several different ways to allow the city council to choose from alternative
rate structures, including the contentious issue of whether
or not Oklahoma University, which owns large parcels of
impervious surface area, will support the stormwater utility.
BOXELDER COUNTY (CO)
Mr. Gagnon assisted Boxelder County (County) in the
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 32 ]
determination of how they will finance their required stormwater improvements. They plan to create a stormwater utility
through diverse funding sources including impact and user
fees, a community financing district, and grants and loans.
The goal of this study was to identify and size a system of
improvements which will achieve the greatest defined economic benefit (both local and regional) per dollar of cost,
based on the 100-year floodplain extents.
OTHER FINANCIAL AND
MANAGEMENT STUDIES
TOWN OF PARKER (AZ)
Mr. Gagnon is performing a benchmarking analysis of the
Town of Parker’s (Town) water, parks and recreation and
streets departments due to efficiency concerns. The study
will compare the Town’s cost efficiency with other small
towns.
MARINE CORPS BASE CAMP PENDLETON (CA)
Mr. Gagnon led an asset inventory and condition assessment
of the water and wastewater systems on Marine Corps Base
Camp Pendleton. The inventory included field visits and
literature reviews to document and describe the extent and
condition of all utility assets. Asset data was compiled in a
database and linked to GIS mapping.
OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon developed an economic model that evaluates the cost benefit analysis of four different water supply
options including desalinization, increased use of recycled
water, and expansion of their existing water treatment plant
using membrane technology. Proposed funding levels were
prepared for the long-range financial plan to match projects
against the revenue levels necessary to support them.
CONFIDENTIAL FORTUNE 500
AEROSPACE CORPORATION (CA)
Mr. Gagnon created an excel based financial model to cost
and budget one of the largest corporate environmental
liabilities – a nine-mile long plume of rocket fuel-related
contamination – underlying several cities in southern California. Remediation strategies were constantly changing
and, thus, the model simulated costs for numerous remediation alternatives. The model also allowed for monthly and
yearly budgeting and total clean-up expenditures.
EARTH TECH (CA)
Mr. Gagnon developed an Operation Excellence Plan to
ensure client satisfaction on the execution of a multimillion
dollar Master Services Agreement with a Fortune 500 Aerospace Corporation. The plan provided guidance in many
[ 33 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
areas including QA/QC, client feedback, staff allocation,
etc. The plan also included performance measures to evaluate client satisfaction, program success, and failures.
OTAY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Gagnon assisted in facilitating performance metric workshops with the Otay Water District management staff. The
workshops discussed performance metric basics, analyzed
dozens of performance metrics, how to calculate them, and
eventually helped staff narrow down the metrics they believed
were best for their utility.
KEWEENAW NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (MI)
Mr. Gagnon coauthored a business plan submitted to the
U.S. Congress to seek additional funding to expand a
national park in Michigan. The business plan included a
historical cost accounting analysis of prior fund use and
projected future fund needs.
U.S. ARMY SUDBURY ANNEX
SUPERFUND SITE (MA)
Mr. Gagnon was the Project Manager for the remediation
and real estate transfer of a 2,000-acre army ammunition
depot and research installation in central Massachusetts.
Mr. Gagnon oversaw project funds, environmental studies,
and construction contracts with consulting firms and partnered with the U.S. EPA to determine clean-up goals and
strategies.
OTHER RELEVANT
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»» Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant (DC) Valuation Study
»» Metro Wastewater Joint Powers Authority (CA) Valuation of Treatment Capacity
»» City of Pico Rivera (CA) - Valuation of Groundwater
Pumping Rights
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Data analysis
»» Environmental Policy
Analysis
»» Strategic Planning
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial
Consultants,
Inc.: Consultant
(2014-present)
»» Turner New Zealand,
Inc.: Director of
Operations (2009-2012);
Accounting Manager
(2007-2009)
»» Lesley, Thomas, Schwarz
& Postma, Inc.: Staff
Accountant (2007)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Environmental
Management – Duke
University (2014)
»» Bachelor of Arts in
Business-Economics;
History – University of
California, Santa Barbara
(2006)
KEVIN KOSTIUK
STAFF CONSULTANT
Consultant
PROFILE
Mr. Kostiuk has a background in economics and accounting and possesses extensive
analytical skills. His expertise lies in financial accounting, analysis of water supply
reservoir operations and management, environmental policy, environmental quality, and
product development; as well as United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
water supply and flood control policy.
RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
CRESCENTA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Kostiuk performed an economic analysis for the Crescenta Valley Water District
(District) to determine the feasibility of offsetting imported water supply with the
production of local groundwater. Mr. Kostiuk created a customized model for the
District to use under different scenarios of capital requirements, lease options, and
contract lengths. As part of the study, he reviewed the District’s prior consultant’s
work, determined internal rate of returns, calculated the net present value of district
savings, and determined the cost at which the District should lease water rights for
groundwater production.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE (CA)
Mr. Kostiuk completed a study for the City of Riverside (City) to determine the value
of an elevation fee credit for present and future customers in a special district. The
project required calculation of asset replacement values for infrastructure serving the
special district, specific to booster capacity, and within the context of a historical
assessment. The findings from the study will be used to defend the City’s move to
assess its elevation fee schedule.
EAST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CA)
Mr. Kostiuk is assisting the East Valley Water District with construction and implementation of budget-based water rates for their 23,000 accounts. The study includes creation of
long-term financial plans and full cost of service studies for both water and sewer services.
CITY OF RALEIGH PUBLIC UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT- AMERICAN RIVERS
Mr. Kostiuk served as project leader for a study of alternatives to meet Raleigh’s long
term water supply shortfall. The project examined four options in extending the life
of the existing federal reservoir, thereby postponing capital expenditures on a new
raw water supply. Results were delivered to city staff, their consultants and USACE
in June, 2014.
LOWER CAPE FEAR WATER QUALITY TRADING PROGRAM – THE
NATURE CONSERVANCY
To reduce nutrient loading and decrease utility costs, the Nature Conservancy proposed a WaterFund to improve water quality through improved agricultural practices
on private landholdings in the watershed. Mr. Kostiuk was in charge of researching
comparable programs and providing options for a financial mechanism and governance
approach between various stakeholders in the region including utilities, agriculture,
environmental organizations and community groups.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 34 ]
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Financial modeling
»» Financial planning
AKBAR ALIKHAN
STAFF CONSULTANT
Consultant
»» Utility rate studies
PROFILE
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial
Consultants, Inc.:
Consultant (2014-present)
»» City of Thousand Oaks,
Public Works Analyst
(2010-2014);
»» Acting Assistant to the City
Manager (Jan 2014 – May
2014)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Public
Administration – Cornell
University (2010)
»» Bachelor of Science in
Applied Economics &
Management – Cornell
University (2009)
Mr. Alikhan has a background in economics, public policy and community outreach
with a keen emphasis on public speaking and writing for non-technical audiences.
His expertise lies in the areas of financial modeling, public works operations and
benchmarking, and public utilities.
RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
TRIUNFO SANITATION DISTRICT (CA)
As the financial consultant for both the recycled water and wastewater enterprises,
Mr. Alikhan developed updated models that had initially been created by RFC
in 2009. The updated recycled water model better aligned seasonal purchase and
resale prices of recycled water from the District’s regional wholesaler.
CITY OF VISTA / BUENA SANITATION DISTRICT (CA)
In summer 2014, Mr. Alikhan performed the wastewater rate study update for
the City of Vista Wastewater & Buena Sanitation District. Although both are
administered by the same governing body, the entities are two distinct enterprises.
The model required the inclusion of the City’s multiple State Revolving Fund loans
for ongoing projects and other sources of debt for larger scale capital replacement
projects.
CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
In June 2014, the District retained RFC to perform a Wastewater Rate Study
and Organizational Staffing Needs Assessment Study. Mr. Alikhan served as
the consultant assigned to the Staffing Needs Assessment component of the
engagement. Throughout the study, Mr. Alikhan has been in over 50 individual
and group interviews with District staff, conducted and reported results of an
employee survey, and worked with the General Manager and Executive Team to
develop a staffing roadmap for the District’s future needs. The project is slated for
completion in February 2015.
CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS: PUBLIC WORKS ANALYST (2010-2014)
During his tenure at the City of Thousand Oaks, Mr. Alikhan served as the primary
analyst for the Public Works Director. His core duties included management of the
City’s Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District No. 79-2, developing feasibility
models for energy efficiency projects, and supervision of all staff reports for Public
Works activities. Mr. Alikhan also served as the Assistant to the City Manager
during the first half of 2014, with leadership roles in such events as the Amgen
Tour of California.
[ 35 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Utility rate studies
JOHNATHAN CRUZ
»» Financial planning studies
STAFF CONSULTANT
Associate Consultant (RFC)
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
PROFILE
EDUCATION
Mr. Cruz has a background in finance and economics and possesses extensive analytical skills. His primary expertise includes: financial and econometric modeling,
dynamic pricing, as well as compiling and analyzing data. Since joining RFC, he
has worked on both water and wastewater rate studies including the South Mesa
Water District, Upper San Gabriel Valley MWD, the Cities of San Gabriel and
Reno, and South Bay Water Recycling Program.
»» Master of Arts in
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»» Raftelis Financial
Consultants, Inc.:
Associate Consultant
(2014-present)
Economics – University of
California, Riverside (2012)
»» Bachelor of Arts in
Economics/Administrative
Studies with a
concentration in Finance
– University of California,
Riverside (2010)
CITY OF SAN GABRIEL (CA)
As a financial consultant for a new sewer rate study, Mr. Cruz designed a set of
new sewer rates for the City of San Gabriel, which would allow them to begin
collecting revenue for their sewer system. The project required an analysis of the
City’s finances and implementation of a new sewer rate in order to meet escalating
revenue requirements. Mr. Cruz developed the financial model that would allow
the City to begin meeting revenue requirements while adhering to the principals
of equity, defensibility, and minimal customer impact.
UPPER SAN GABRIEL VALLEY
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT (CA)
The Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District engaged RFC to conduct a
comprehensive water and recycled water rate study. The study required development
of a financial plan which ensured financial sufficiency, particularly with regard to
a large indirect potable reuse project which required immediate funding to begin
construction and once online would cause significant changes to the District’s revenue
and expense positions. Mr. Cruz assisted with developing a dynamic model which
would allow the District to evaluate a variety of funding and cost scenarios.
SOUTH MESA WATER COMPANY (CA)
South Mesa Water Company engaged RFC to conduct an extensive water rate
and connection fee study. Mr. Cruz analyzed the Company’s current assets and
developed a system of connection fees that would help the Company to maintain
its financial sufficiency. Mr. Cruz also contributed to dynamic elements of the
model created for the study, specifically developing a selection-based construction
expense calculation, which allowed Company Board members to make informed
decisions about annual construction allocations and the feasibility of future projects
in real time.
CITY OF RENO (NV)
The City of Reno retained RFC to develop a wastewater rate study for its residential
customers, which would determine the feasibility of implementing a new usage-based
sewer rate in place of its existing fixed rate. The study required the merger of two
separate county data sets with the City’s own account data. As the financial consultant for the wastewater study, Mr. Cruz developed a methodology for merging the
three data sets into a master customer usage list which ultimately allowed the City
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 36 ]
to begin feasibility discussions. The new master list had the
added benefit of identifying misclassified customers and other
accounting inconsistencies which accounted for previously
uncollected revenue.
SOUTH BAY WATER RECYCLING (CA)
The City of San Jose engaged RFC to develop a financial model that would serve as the starting point for rate
increase talks with customers and nearby water districts.
As the financial consultant, Mr. Cruz developed a financial
model that combined several funding and revenue scenarios
into a single financial plan. Mr. Cruz’s model allowed for
infinitely adjustable discount based rates, which could be
phased-in over a user-selected time period.
[ 37 ]
RAFTELIS FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
TECHNICAL SPECIALTIES
»» Financial Modeling
PROFESSIONAL HISTORY
»» Raftelis Financial Consultants
(2014-present)
EDUCATION
»» Master of Environmental
Management – Duke
University (2014)
»» Bachelor of Arts in Asian
Studies (Chinese)/ Peace, War,
and Defense – University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill
(2011)
VICTOR SMITH
STAFF CONSULTANT
Associate
PROFILE
Mr. Smith joined RFC in 2014 as an Associate Consultant after graduating from
Duke University with a Masters of Environmental Management. In addition to
his expertise in financial modeling, Mr. Smith has a background in environmental
and energy economics.
RELEVANT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS (CA)
The City of Beverly Hills engaged RFC to develop a financial model to calculate
connection fees for new developments and redevelopment. As the financial consultant, Mr. Smith developed a model that combined data from several sources
and calculated appropriate connection fees based on the “buy-in” methodology.
CITY OF REDLANDS (CA)
The City of Redlands engaged RFC to develop a water and wastewater financial
plan model. As an associate consultant, Mr. Smith developed the City’s Water
and Wastewater Development Impact Fees.
CITY OF CHINO HILLS (CA)
The City of Chino Hills engaged RFC to develop a financial plan model to
accompany an asset management study from GHD. As the project’s lead financial
consultant, Mr. Smith developed a 100 year financial model based on analysis
of the City’s current finances including water acquisition costs, capital and asset
management costs, and water sales revenues.
CITY OF BREA (CA)
The City of Brea engaged RFC to develop a financial plan model for a water rate
study. Mr. Smith built a 5-year financial model of the City’s water enterprise.
This model will be used by the City to develop future rate increases.
CITY OF WATSONVILLE (CA)
The City Watsonville engaged RFC to develop a water, wastewater and solid
waste financial plan model. Mr. Smith built a 5-year financial model of the City’s
three utility enterprises. This model will be used by the City to develop future
rates for all three enterprises.
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
[ 38 ]
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: REVISIONS TO SEWER TRANSFER PLAN OF SERVICE/EXTENSION
OF TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH OCSD
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
BACKGROUND
At the April 11th Board Workshop, staff reviewed proposed revisions to the Plan of Service
that was filed on March 27, 2014 with OCLAFCO. As noted during the workshop, these revisions
were based upon information that wasn’t available when the document was being prepared last
year, as well as information that has been developed through field services coordination with
OCSD.
Pending Board approval, Staff proposes to submit the revisions to OCLAFCO on April 17th. It
should be noted that OCLAFCO staff have advised that submission of these revisions will delay
their transfer review and cause their schedule for Commission consideration of our transfer
application to slip to their June 10th meeting.
In a related matter, the original Transfer Agreement with OCSD didn’t anticipate the extensive
time it has taken to process the application through OCLAFCO; the agreement had a December
31st termination date. Staff requests that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute
the attached Amendment; OCSD is scheduled to consider this at their April 22nd meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board direct General Manager to: 1) make such modifications to the District’s Sewer Area
#7 Plan of Service as is necessary to update it based upon the most current financial and technical
information available and submit it to OCLAFCO and, 2) execute Amendment No. 1 to the Local
Sewer Facilities Transfer Agreement.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
LOCAL SEWER FACILITIES
TRANSFER AGREEMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO LOCAL SEWER FACILITIES TRANSFER
AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made this ___ day of _________, 2015
("Effective Date") by and between the ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT ("OCSD"), a duly organized County Sanitation District existing
pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 47000 et seq., and the
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT ("EOCWD"), a duly organized
County Water District existing pursuant to California Water Code section 30000
et seq. OCSD and EOCWD are sometimes hereinafter individually referred to as
"Party" and hereinafter collectively referred to as "Parties".
RECITALS
WHEREAS, OCSD and EOCWD are parties to that certain “Local Sewer
Facilities Transfer Agreement,” dated ___, 2014 (“the Agreement”), in which the
parties set forth their intent to cooperate in the transfer of ownership in and the
assumption of responsibility for certain local sewer facilities from OCSD to
EOCWD; and
WHEREAS, the transfer process requires the approval of the Orange
County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), and, although that
process commenced in a timely manner, the LAFCO process has taken longer
than the parties anticipated; and
WHEREAS, the parties therefore desire to amend the Agreement to
extend the timelines and termination date to reflect the current status of the
LAFCO process.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth
herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1.
Extension of Timelines.
In order to reflect the changed
circumstances with regard to the timeline for completion of the transfer,
“December 1, 2014” in subsections 2.a. and 3.d. shall be amended to read
“December 31, 2015”; and “July 1, 2015” and “2014-2015 Fiscal Year” in
subsection 3.f.i. shall be amended to read, respectively, “July 1, 2016” and
“2015-2016 Fiscal Year.”
2.
follows:
Amendment to Section 6. Section 6 shall be amended to read as
Page 1 of 8
972720.2
6.
Term. This Agreement shall commence on the
Effective Date and continue in full force and effect through
December 31, 2015. The parties may mutually agree in writing to
extend the term of this agreement.
The Agreement shall
automatically terminate if LAFCO disapproves the proposal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the dates set forth below.
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT
By ____________________________
Jim Herberg
General Manager
Date______________________
ATTEST:
____________________________
Maria Ayala
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Brad Hogin
General Counsel
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
By ____________________________
Lisa Ohlund
General Manager
Date______________________
ATTEST:
____________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Joan Arneson
General Counsel
Page 2 of 8
972720.2
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: REDESIGNATION OF "METER CHARGE" TO "SERVICE CHARGE"
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
Background
The District’s Rules & Regulations for Water Service and Rate Schedule includes three
fee/charge categories:
1. Commodity (Water) Charge – calculated based on water usage.
2. Meter Charge – calculated on a monthly basis based on the size of the customer’s meter
3. Capital Projects Fee – Flat monthly fee
While the names of the charges seem to be self-explanatory, many customers call in asking
about the “Meter Charge” and question when it will be paid off, or why they have to pay for their
meter; after inquiries about the amount of their bill, this is the most common billing question we
receive from customers.
The Meter Charge is actually a charge for water service – it represents the recovery of most
of the fixed costs for the operations and maintenance of the water system. Staff proposes that
the Meter Charge be renamed the “Service Charge.”
The Meter Charge designation appears in Sections 1.2, 3.5 and 4.2.8 of the Rules and
Regulations and in two places on the Rate Schedule (attached); the changes required to
incorporate the name change are shown marked-up in the documents.
Recommendation
The Board approve changing the designation of “Meter Charge” to “Service Charge.”
RULES AND
REGULATIONS
FOR WATER
SERVICE
APPROVED: NOVEMBER 15, 2013
1
CONTENTS
APPROVED: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SECTION 1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
1.3
SERVICE AREA ........................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4
SERVICE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 11
1.5
CUSTOMER RECORDS ............................................................................................................................................... 11
1.6
ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES ..................................................................................................................................... 11
1.7
GUIDELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 11
1.8
SEVERABILITY............................................................................................................................................................ 11
SECTION 2 CONDITIONS FOR SERVICE ....................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1
ACCESS TO PREMISES ............................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2
OPERATION BY THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES ............................................................................................................... 12
2.3
DAMAGE TO SYSTEM................................................................................................................................................ 12
2.4
THE DISTRICT'S RIGHT TO INTERRUPT SERVICE........................................................................................................ 12
2.5
DISTRICT LIMITS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY ................................................................................................ 13
2.6
VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 13
2.7
RIGHT OF APPEAL ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
SECTION 3 WATER BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE ............................................................................................................. 14
3.1
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCOUNT ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.2
Responsibility FOR UNPAID CHARGES ...................................................................................................................... 14
3.3
TENANT RESPONSIBILITY .......................................................................................................................................... 14
3.4
NEW ACCOUNTS ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5
CLOSING Of ACCOUNTS ............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.6
BILLING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
3.6.1
2
Billing Disputes ................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.6.2
3.7
BILLING FOR DAMAGES ................................................................................................................................... 15
PAYMENTS ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.7.1
Payments Made at District Office .................................................................................................................... 16
3.7.2
Payments Made by Mail .................................................................................................................................. 16
3.7.3
AUTOMATIC Electronic Funds Transfer Payments .......................................................................................... 16
3.7.4
Payments Made by Credit/Debit Cards THROUGH THE DISTRICT WEBSITE .................................................... 17
3.7.6
Payments Returned by Bank ........................................................................................................................... 17
3.7.7
Extensions ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
3.8
DELINQUENCIES....................................................................................................................................................... 17
3.8.1
Delinquent Bills ................................................................................................................................................ 17
3.8.2
Notice of Planned SHUTOFF of Water Service................................................................................................. 17
3.8.3
shutoff of Water Service for Nonpayment ...................................................................................................... 18
3.8.4
Restoration of Water Service .......................................................................................................................... 18
3.9
DEPOSITS .................................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.10
CUSTOMER INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS ........................................................................................................... 19
3.10.1
Meter Inquiries and Testing ............................................................................................................................ 19
3.10.2
High Water Use and Investigations ................................................................................................................. 20
3.10.3
Water Quality Inquiries ................................................................................................................................... 20
3.11
SECTION 4
4.1
BANKRUPTCIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 20
WATER FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES ...................................................................................................... 20
APPLICATION PROCESS............................................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.1
Plan Check Process .......................................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.2
Issuing the Permit ............................................................................................................................................ 21
4.1.3
Water Service Agreement ............................................................................................................................... 21
4.1.4
Fees and Charges ............................................................................................................................................. 22
4.1.5
CONNECTION Charges ..................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.6
Bonds and Conditions for Release of Bonds .................................................................................................... 24
3
4.1.7
4.2
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER FACILITIES .................................................................................................................... 25
4.2.1
Underground Service Alert .............................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.2
Safety Requirements ....................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.3
Charges for Damages ....................................................................................................................................... 26
4.2.4
Valves and Water Main Shutdowns ................................................................................................................ 26
4.2.5
The District Inspection ..................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.6
Size, Location and Installation of Water Services ............................................................................................ 27
4.2.7
SERVICE LATERAL, Meter Installation, Fees ..................................................................................................... 27
4.2.8
Single Meter Policy .......................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.9
Submetering and Prohibited Practices ............................................................................................................ 28
4.2.10
Automatic Fire Sprinkler Service Connections................................................................................................. 29
Section 5
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICES ............................................................................................................................ 30
5.1
TEMPORARY CONNECTIONS .................................................................................................................................... 30
5.2
HYDRANT METERS .................................................................................................................................................... 31
5.3
PAYMENT.................................................................................................................................................................. 31
5.3.1
Regular Monthly Bills ....................................................................................................................................... 31
5.3.2
Delinquent Bills ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Section 6
4
Document of Conveyance and Guarantee ...................................................................................................... 25
CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION .......................................................................................... 33
6.1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 33
6.2
GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 33
6.2.1
Protection ........................................................................................................................................................ 33
6.2.2
Backflow Prevention Devices........................................................................................................................... 33
6.2.3
Unprotected Cross Connections ...................................................................................................................... 33
6.2.4
New Service Requests ..................................................................................................................................... 33
6.2.5
Protection Required Before Granting Service ................................................................................................. 33
6.2.6
Protect All Water Lines ................................................................................................................................... 34
6.3
WHERE PROTECTION IS REQUIRED .......................................................................................................................... 34
6.3.1
Premises Having An Auxiliary Water Supply.................................................................................................... 34
6.3.2
Premises Handling Processed Water ............................................................................................................... 34
6.4
PREMISES HAVING OR POSSIBLY HAVING CROSS CONNECTIONS ............................................................................ 34
6.5
TYPE OF PROTECTION .............................................................................................................................................. 34
6.5.1
Type of Backflow Device .................................................................................................................................. 34
6.6 APPLICATION .................................................................................................................................................................... 35
6.6.1
Structures of More Than Two Stories In Height .............................................................................................. 35
6.6.2
Recirculating Water ......................................................................................................................................... 35
6.6.3
Five or More Units ........................................................................................................................................... 35
6.6.4
Health or System Hazard From Auxiliary Water Supply .................................................................................. 35
6.6.5
Sewage and Storm Drain Facilities .................................................................................................................. 35
6.6.6
Hospitals, Mortuaries, Etc. ............................................................................................................................. 35
6.6.7
Commercial or Industrial Buildings.................................................................................................................. 36
6.6.8
Fireline Services ............................................................................................................................................... 36
6.6.9
Irrigation Services ............................................................................................................................................ 36
6.7
INSTALLATION .......................................................................................................................................................... 36
6.7.1
Only The District Approved Devices ............................................................................................................... 36
6.7.2
Installation Specifications ............................................................................................................................... 36
6.7.3
Replacement of Obsolete Devices .................................................................................................................. 36
6.7.4
Testing New Devices ........................................................................................................................................ 36
6.7.5 Right to Reject........................................................................................................................................................... 37
6.8 INSPECTION AND TESTING ............................................................................................................................................... 37
6.8.1
Original Test ..................................................................................................................................................... 37
6.8.2
Annual Test by Certified Tester ....................................................................................................................... 37
6.8.3
Random Tests and Inspections of Devices....................................................................................................... 38
6.8.4
On-Premise Inspection by The District ............................................................................................................ 38
5
6.8.5
More Frequent Inspection ............................................................................................................................... 38
6.8.6
Duty of Tester .................................................................................................................................................. 38
6.8.7
Testing Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 38
6.9
6.9.1
Basis for Termination....................................................................................................................................... 38
6.9.2
Termination Procedures .................................................................................................................................. 39
Section 7
6
TERMINATION .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 39
7.1
New Service Connections ........................................................................................................................................ 39
7.2
eXISTING Service Connections................................................................................................................................. 39
7.3
TERMINATION OF WATER SERVICE ......................................................................................................................... 39
7.4
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 40
SECTION 1 GENERAL
1.1
INTRODUCTION
The East Orange County Water District (District) is a County Water District operating pursuant to the County Water District
Law (Section 30000 and following of the California Water Code). The Board, as authorized by Section 31024 of the Water
Code, has established these Rules and Regulations for the retail sale, distribution and use of water. 1
The District provides water service to all Applicants, subject to the availability of water and/or the facilities necessary to
provide the service, conditional upon receipt of all required fees and charges, and in accordance with these Rules and
Regulations.
All terms, conditions, rates and requirements contained herein are subject to change by actions of the Board.
1.2
DEFINITIONS
Whenever the following terms, or pronouns used in their place, occur in these Rules and Regulations, or in any documents
that these Rules and Regulations govern, the intent and meaning shall be interpreted as follows:
Abandoned Service - shall mean any service where the meter, the meter angle stop, curb stop or gate valve, and all tubing,
have been removed. The service saddle and the corporation stop may or may not have been removed.
Air-Gap Separation - shall mean a physical separation between the free flowing discharge end of a water supply pipeline
and an open or non-pressure receiving vessel. The separation shall be at least double the diameter of the supply pipe
measured vertically above the overflow rim of the vessel, and in no case less than one-inch. The design shall be to the
satisfaction of the General Manager or authorized agent and the Appropriate Regulatory Agencies.
Applicant - shall mean any person, persons, firm, corporation, association or agency that desires and applies to obtain
water service from the District.
Application for Water Service - shall mean a contractual agreement applied for by a person, persons, firm, corporation,
association or agency who desires to obtain water service through an established meter.
Application for Temporary Water Service - shall mean a contractual agreement applied for by a person, persons, firm,
corporation, association or agency who desires to obtain temporary water service for use during construction.
Appropriate Regulatory Agencies - shall mean those public agencies legally constituted to protect the public health
and water quality such as, but not limited to, the California Department of Health Services, the Santa Ana Regional
The District’s sale of water at wholesale, to entities that provide retail water service in the portions of the District’s
service area outside the District’s Retail Zone, is governed by separate contracts and other requirements, and not by these
Rules and Regulations.
1
7
Water Quality Control Board, the Orange County Health Care Agency and the Orange County Building and Safety
Department.
Backflow - shall mean the flow of water or other liquids, mixtures, gases or any other substances into the distributing
pipes of a Potable Water supply from any source or sources other than the District’s sources.
Backflow Prevention Device - shall mean a specially designed and certified device, such as, but not limited to, the
Reduced Pressure Principle Backflow Prevention Device and the Double Check Valve Assembly, that is used in
protecting the Potable Water system from contamination that originated downstream of the device. The device shall
be recognized and approved as such by the General Manager or authorized agent and the Appropriate Regulatory
Agencies.
Board - shall mean the elected Board of Directors of the East Orange County Water District.
Business Day - shall mean Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 4:00 pm excluding holidays.
Connection Charge - shall mean a fee charged to a Retail Zone Applicant in connection with a Water Service
Agreement or charged to an existing customer for an increase in demand for Potable Water service (increasing the
size of the service meter), as set forth in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges, together with the District’s applicable
wholesale connection charge. A Connection Charge shall be charged for property not previously served by the District
or property with an existing water service requiring an increase in demand for water service. The Connection Charge
includes a retail water system capacity charge but does not include the cost of meter setting, service lateral, any main
extension or reimbursement for main extension. 2
Capital Projects Fee – shall mean the monthly fee, referred to in the schedule of rates as the “Monthly Fee for Existing
Water System Capital Projects” or similar term, levied for the cost of repairing, rehabilitating, replacing and/or
improving capital facilities in the water system.
Connected Capacity Demand (CCD) - shall mean the total estimated demand for water service, expressed in terms of
gallons per minute, as calculated using the procedures specified in the California Plumbing Code.
Construction Use - shall mean an approved use of water to support construction activities such as soil compaction
and dust control.
Contractor - shall mean the party entering into contract with the Applicant for performance of the work for which the
District issues a permit. The Applicant and the Contractor may or may not be one and the same.
Cross Connection - shall mean any unprotected, actual or potential connection between any part of a Potable Water
system used to supply water for drinking purposes and any source or system containing water or substance that is
not or cannot be approved by the District as safe, wholesome and potable. By-pass arrangements, jumper
connections, removable sections, swivel or changeover devices, or other devices through which Backflow could occur,
shall be considered to be Cross Connections.
Customer - shall mean any person, persons, firm, corporation, association or agency receiving retail water or services from
the District.
The “Connection Charge” as defined herein does not include the District’s separate Wholesale Zone Connection
Charge established and charged within the entire service area of the District, including the Retail Zone.
2
8
Customer Control Valve - shall mean a valve with a lever-type turn handle, manufactured of bronze, installed on the outlet
side of a water meter.
Customer of Record - shall mean the person, persons, firm, corporation, association or agency that owns the property and
has entered into a Water Service Agreement or other contractual agreement with the District for water service or is the
successor and/or assignee to a Water Service Agreement or such other contractual agreement; and/or the property tenant
who is the Applicant in an Application for Water Service or Application for Temporary Water Service. The contractual
agreement may include, but is not limited to, the Water Service Agreement, the Application for Water Service permit, the
Application for Temporary Water Service permit, and a request for any of these received at the District by phone, mail or in
person. The Customer and Customer of Record may or may not be one and the same. The Customer of Record is
responsible for payment of all moneys owed on accounts for which the Customer of Record has entered into a contractual
agreement.
Deposit - shall mean any money held by the District for the purpose of guaranteeing payment of money owed to the
District. Deposits are applicable only to the account(s) for which the money was collected. Deposits are refunded only to
the Customer of Record, unless the depositor has made a written request and has received permission from the District to
do otherwise.
District - shall mean the East Orange County Water District or an authorized agent.
District’s Engineer - shall mean the engineer designated by the District or an authorized agent.
District Inspector - shall mean any person authorized by the District to perform inspections of either onsite or offsite
facilities prior to construction, during construction, after construction or during operation.
District Office - shall mean the District business office currently located at 185 N. McPherson Road, Orange, California
92869.
Drawings - shall mean the plans, working drawings, detail drawings, profiles, typical cross sections and supplemental
drawings or reproductions thereof, approved by the District, which show locations, character, dimensions or details of the
work or modifications to be performed.
General Manager - shall mean the General Manager of the District or an authorized agent.
Main or Mainline - shall mean water distribution pipelines located in streets, highways, public ways or private right-of-ways
used to deliver or transmit water.
Meter - shall mean the District approved primary measuring device, owned by the District, which is used for the purpose of
accurately recording the consumption of water at a property, properties or on a portion of a property. The meter is
typically the ending Point of Ownership.
Meter Charge - shall mean a fixed charge based on meter size levied to fund the ongoing day-to-day fixed costs of the
water system.
Owner - shall mean any holder of legal title to a property to which the District provides water service or has entered into a
Water Service Agreement.
Property – shall mean any real property owned, leased, rented, or otherwise controlled, utilized, or inhabited by any
person, including any corporation or partnership of any form holding a water account with the District.
9
Point of Ownership – The point where the District’s ownership and control of water system facilities ends, which shall be
the outlet (downstream) side of the water meter or the control valve upstream of the backflow device. By written
agreement only, the District may designate another location as the ending Point of Ownership.
Potable Water - shall mean water that is approved for human consumption by the federal, State and local Appropriate
Regulatory Agencies.
Potable Water System - shall mean the facilities that produce, convey and store Potable Water.
Pulled Meter - shall a meter that has been removed, where the service line is still in place.
Record Drawings - shall mean the design drawings that have been marked to show all construction changes for a given
project to the best of available knowledge.
Retail Zone - shall mean the portion of the District’s service area where the District provides both wholesale and retail
water services to the Customers. See Section 1.3.
Rules and Regulations - shall mean the Rules and Regulations for Water Service as adopted, and amended, by the District.
Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges – shall mean the District’s “Retail Zone Monthly Meter Charges/Service Charges and
Delivered Water Service Charges,” as adopted and in effect at the relevant time.
Service Charge - shall mean a fixed monthly charge based on meter size levied to fund the ongoing day-to-day fixed costs of
the water system.
Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities - shall mean the latest
edition of the District’s publication.
Tenant - shall mean the person, persons, firm, corporation, association or agency that is renting or leasing property, to
which the District provides water service, from an Owner.
Violation - shall mean noncompliance with any condition or conditions of these Rules and Regulations by any person, action
or occurrence, whether willfully or by accident.
Water Charge – shall mean the any of the commodity rates, service charges, meter charges, and other fees and charges
levied for water service.
Water Service -- shall mean retail water service provided by the District.
Water Service Agreement - shall mean an agreement entered into between the District and a person, persons, firm,
corporation, association or agency, or their successors and assignees, who has already, or desires to, install, remove, alter
or replace, or cause to be installed, removed, altered, or replaced, any water facility or appurtenance for the purpose of
supplying water to a property.
Water Service Permit – shall mean a permit issued by the District upon approval by the District of a map or plans for the
installation, removal, alteration or replacement, of any water facility or appurtenance, and upon receipt of required fees
and charges, including Connection Charges.
1.3
10
SERVICE AREA
The District was formed on December 1, 1961 to provide imported water service to the then- unincorporated areas of the
East Orange area. The District provides imported water (wholesale) service to parts of the Cities of Tustin and Orange, the
Irvine Ranch Water District and the Golden State Water Company. The District provides local groundwater and imported
water service (retail) to the unincorporated county area of East Orange.
1.4
SERVICE CONDITIONS
Water service shall be available only in accordance with the District Rules and Regulations, as well as applicable Federal, State,
and local statutes, ordinances, regulations, and contracts, and other requirements including, but not by way of limitation, the
California Water Code, the California Administrative Code and regulations imposed by State and local health departments, as
well as the terms of any service agreement and/or permit issued by the District. Any such permit may be revoked by the
District, and thereupon, all such water service shall cease in the manner provided in these Rules and Regulations.
As a condition of service, the District reserves the right to require any Applicant to construct any water facility that the District
deems essential, including the over-sizing or extension of water facilities.
1.5
CUSTOMER RECORDS
The District will provide information on customers in accordance with Government Code Section 6250 - the California Public
Records Act.
The request for records shall be submitted at the District Office. It is preferred that the request be made in writing to
streamline the process and to ensure that the correct records are transmitted
1.6
ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES
In accordance with the California Water Code, the District's Board fixes the water rates and other related fees and charges.
Periodically, the Board reviews and adjusts the rates, fees and charges.
1.7
GUIDELINES AND INTERPRETATIONS
The General Manager shall have the authority to adopt additional guidelines or generate written interpretations of these
Rules and Regulations where necessary for day-to-day operations and/or may submit a question to the Board for clarification.
1.8
SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of these Rules and Regulations is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of these Rules and Regulations. The Board hereby
declares that it would have passed these Rules and Regulations by section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof,
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
11
SECTION 2 CONDITIONS FOR SERVICE
2.1
ACCESS TO PREMISES
Authorized employees of the District, upon presentation of credentials and during reasonable or necessary hours, shall have
free access including gate codes and keys or key cards, to any premises supplied with water by the District, for the purpose
of reading meters and/or making repairs, inspections, examinations or tests of the water system upon said premises and to
ensure compliance with these Rules and Regulations.
If any authorized employee is refused admittance to any premises, or is hindered or prevented from reading meters, making
repairs or inspections, examinations or tests, the District may cause the water service to said premises to be turned off after
giving twenty-four hours notice to the owner or occupant of said premises of the intention to do so. In the case of major
violations, operational emergencies on the property, or health hazards the District may cause the water to be turned off
without notice.
2.2
OPERATION BY THE DISTRICT EMPLOYEES
All of The District's water system, including but not limited to, water pipelines, reservoirs, fire hydrants, manholes, pumping
stations, valves, connections, treatment facilities and other appurtenances and property, shall be under the management
and control of the General Manager. No other persons, except authorized employees of the District, shall have any right to
enter upon, inspect, operate, adjust, change, alter, move or relocate any portion of the foregoing or any of the District's
property without the written consent of the General Manager or an authorized representative of the manager. In the event
that an unauthorized person(s) enters upon, inspects, operates, adjusts, changes, alters, moves or relocates any facilities
without written consent from the General Manager or an authorized representative of the General Manager, the District
reserves the right to prosecute such an unauthorized person to the fullest extent of the law. In addition, the District shall be
entitled to recover damages as provided in Section 3.6.2 and penalties as provided in Section 7.4.
2.3
DAMAGE TO SYSTEM
Except to shut off water to prevent damage, no person other than an authorized District employee shall at any time or in any
manner, operate or cause to be operated, any valve in or connected with a water Main, service connection or fire hydrant or
tamper or otherwise interfere with any water meter, check valve or other part of the District's water system, except the
Customer Control Valve. In the event a person, for any reason, digs out or uncovers a corporation stop, angle meter stop or
valve controlling a water supply, lifts or removes a meter box cover or its center piece or causes or suffers any such act to be
done, such person will be subject to penalties as provided in Section 2.2 and will be held liable to the District for any injury or
damage occasioned thereby or resulting there from. In addition, the Customer of Record will be held liable to the District for
any costs incurred for repairing, replacing or adjusting any meter or other appurtenances which have been damaged due to
negligence or carelessness, including but not limited to, damages caused by hot water or steam from a boiler. See Section
3.6.2.
2.4
THE DISTRICT'S RIGHT TO INTERRUPT SERVICE
The District reserves the right at any and all times to shut off water service to any property(s) for emergency, operational or
maintenance purposes.
12
The District will make reasonable efforts to minimize negative impacts and provide appropriate notice to the affected
Customer(s) when shutdowns occur. However, the District assumes no liability for damages to property or for personal injury
or any other liability as a result of shutdowns.
2.5
DISTRICT LIMITS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY
The District assumes no responsibility for the maintenance and/or operation of the Customer's water system downstream of
the Point of Ownership.
The District assumes no responsibility or liability for damage or injury resulting from any violation of these Rules and
Regulations by the Customer, Customer of Record, owner or other person.
As provided in Section 2.4, the District assumes no liability for damages to property or for personal injury or any other liability
as a result of interruptions in water service.
2.6
VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
The District shall have the right to discontinue service to any Customer or property who fails to comply with the District's
Rules and Regulations. Such discontinuance of service shall occur after the Customer of Record has been given notice to
remedy such noncompliance and/or to cease and desist from such violation or infraction, and a reasonable opportunity
thereafter within which to comply with said notices. Such time may be specified in the notice to comply/desist. No such notice
need be given where the noncompliance, violation or infraction of any rule or regulation by the Customer results, or is likely
to result, in a dangerous or unsanitary condition or a health, pollution or system hazard on the Customer's premises and/or
in the District's water system or elsewhere, or where discontinuance of service is necessary to protect The District from fraud,
loss or abuse.
The General Manager may assess a fine to the Customer of Record for each violation of the District's Rules and Regulations
and for each incidence involving the intentional and improper taking of water (see Section 7.4.). Each day that a violation of
these Rules and Regulations continues, or each day such intentional and improper taking of water continues, shall be treated
as a separate violation of this provision. No further water service shall be provided to such Customer or property until such
charge has been paid or otherwise satisfied. If the charge is paid under protest, the Customer of Record can file a written
appeal to the Board.
2.7
RIGHT OF APPEAL
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of the Rules and Regulations concerning water service, any aggrieved Customer or
Customer of Record, who is dissatisfied with the final decision of the General Manager in administering the Rules and
Regulations, can appeal, in writing, such final decision to the Board. The Board shall hear such appeal and render its decision.
The decision of the Board shall be final.
13
SECTION 3 WATER BILLING AND CUSTOMER SERVICE
3.1
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACCOUNT
The Customer of Record is responsible for all bills or invoices. See Section 3.5 regarding procedure for closing account.
3.2
RESPONSIBILITY FOR UNPAID CHARGES
If, after the application of the deposit to the final billing, any charges remain unpaid, the Customer of Record shall not be
relieved of his or her responsibility for unpaid water charges for the subject property, and the District may secure and collect
the unpaid charges as permitted by law.
3.3
TENANT RESPONSIBILITY
Tenants may submit an Application for Water Service and arrange to become the Customer of Record with the permission of
the property owner. Tenants must provide a copy of the lease or rental agreement that indicates the Owner’s name, contact
information and permission for tenant billing; the District will verify it before the account name is changed. Upon closing of
a water service account established in a Tenant’s name, from that point on, billing will revert to the Owner as Customer of
Record.
3.4
NEW ACCOUNTS
Water service will be provided upon request where there is a service line and meter. Requests must be made at least one
business day in advance of the business day service is to commence.
If the District determines that water may run uncontrolled at a property and no one is at the property, the water will not be
turned on.
3.5
CLOSING OF ACCOUNTS
The Customer of Record is responsible for all bills or invoices. Should a Customer of Record wish to discontinue water service,
the District customer service staff must be informed at least one business day before the date service is to be discontinued.
The Customer of Record will be responsible for payment for all water registering on the meter up to and including the day
the final meter reading is obtained. The water service shall be turned off and the meter will be locked until a new Customer
of Record has applied for service. A closing bill will be prepared, which reflects the charges for all water registering on the
meter at the time of final reading, Service Meter Charges and Capital Projects Fees, and any previous balances owed (including
prior bills, fees and charges). Any deposit retained by the District on the account shall then be credited to the account. The
Customer of Record will be billed for any amounts over the deposit, in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and
Charges.
The closing bill will include a due date. If payment in full is not received by this date, a closing delinquent bill will be sent. If
payment in full is not received, the District may send the outstanding balance to a collection agency for collection or pursue
other lawful collection measures.
3.6
14
BILLING
Bills cover a specified period of service, which is stated on the water bill.
Bills for water service will be based on meter readings or in some cases estimated usage.
Invoices for construction water or other services provided by the District shall be billed according to the fees, charges and
conditions outlined in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
All bills and invoices are due and payable upon receipt. Unpaid bills and invoices are considered delinquent if payment is not
received by the due date shown on the bill or invoice. For all Customers, the due date shall be not less than twenty-five days
from the date of billing.
3.6.1
BILLING DISPUTES
Any dispute by the Customer of the amount owed on a bill or invoice must be raised within twenty days of the date of billing
printed on the bill or invoice, or the bill or invoice will be considered correct and payable.
Only the disputed portion of the bill may be set aside by the District pending resolution of the dispute. The Meter Service
Charge and the Capital Projects Fee, plus any outstanding balance, charges or deposits must be paid. The undisputed portion
of the bill must be paid in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations governing undisputed bills or invoices.
3.6.2
BILLING FOR DAMAGES
Recoverable costs of damages to any District facility will be billed to the party that causes the damage.
Damages can occur from many causes, for example, traffic accidents, construction projects, or hydrant meter use. Any
damage to District property resulting from any authorized or unauthorized work on, in or around District facilities also will
result in billing for damages, including District staff time for inspection of damages plus the District's standard labor overhead
rate.
In the event that District staff repairs the property damage, the causing party will be billed to recover the costs of the repair.
These costs will include, but are not limited to, the actual cost of replacement parts and the cost of District staff labor required
to complete the repair, plus the District's standard labor overhead rate.
In the event that the District hires a contractor for the repair work, the causing party will be billed for the costs of the repairs
plus administrative fees.
Payment is due 30 days from the invoice date. A bill will be delinquent if the District does not receive payment by the due
date shown on the bill. A late fee on the unpaid balance will be charged. If payment is not received in full, The District may
refer the account to a collection agency. If the outstanding balance is referred to a collection agency, the customer is
responsible for payment of the outstanding balance plus collection agency fees and administrative fees.
The District expects payment to recover all of the costs for damages at one time. However, the causing party may petition
the District for payment arrangements, which will be reviewed and may be approved by the General Manager.
If the General Manager approves payment arrangements, the requesting party must complete and return a signed and
notarized promissory note that will detail the payment agreement.
15
3.7
PAYMENTS
Cash payments for all services provided by the District must be made at the District Office on a Business Day.
No payment by any method will be accepted by District personnel away from District Office.
Payments received without sufficient information to properly credit the Customer's account may be returned without being
processed and may be subject to late charges as provided for in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
3.7.1
PAYMENTS MADE AT DISTRICT OFFICE
Payments made at the District Office may be in the form of cash, check, cashier's check, or money order. For a fee, credit
card payments may be made at the District Office or via the District website.
Payments made by 4:00 p.m. on a Business Day will be credited to the account that same day. Payments received in the night
drop box by the opening of business on the next regular business day will be credited to the account that business day. CASH
PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE VIA THE NIGHT DROP BOX – IT IS NOT SECURE AND THE DISTRICT WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR LOST OR STOLEN PAYMENTS. Customers are advised that payments via check that are left in the night drop box are also
subject to theft and loss; the District does not warrant the security of the night drop box.
Processing charges will apply if service has been discontinued for non-payment (see Section 3.8.4).
3.7.2
PAYMENTS MADE BY MAIL
Payments made by mail will be credited to the Customer's account on the same day received at the District Office
3.7.3
AUTOMATIC ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Customers may initiate automatic, pre-authorized payment of their water bills by electronic funds transfer (EFT) from an
account at their financial institution by completing an authorization agreement on a form provided by the District, subject to
applicable transaction fees if any.
A Customer must submit a completed, signed authorization agreement for each water account that is to be paid by this
method.
All transfers made in accordance with the authorization agreement will be subject to the Rules, Regulations, and Guidelines
of the Automated Clearing House and the agreements between the District and its Originating Depository Financial Institution
(ODFI).
The first EFT will occur with the next billing after the District has received and processed the properly completed authorization
agreement from the Customer. If desired, the District will email or mail, via the U.S. Postal Service, a copy of the paid water
bill to the Customer.
Should a Customer have an EFT returned by the ODFI twice within a two-year period the Customer will no longer be eligible
for the EFT option.
16
In the event of a dispute regarding the amount owed on a bill, the rules and regulations specified in Section 3.6.1, Billing
Disputes, shall apply. In the event the Customer is entitled to a credit, the District will issue a check on its next normal check
printing date or, if the Customer prefers, a credit may remain on the water account.
3.7.4
PAYMENTS MADE BY CREDIT/DEBIT CARDS THROUGH THE DISTRICT WEBSITE
The District accepts payments by credit/debit card through a third-party administrator that receives a transaction fee paid by
the Customer for this service. Payment can be made using a credit card through the District’s website at www.eocwd.com.
Payments made by credit/debit card will be credited to the Customer’s account on the date of transaction, if made before
9:00 a.m., and on the next business day if made after 9:00 a.m.
3.7.6
PAYMENTS RETURNED BY BANK
Should a check or an electronic fund transfer (EFT) or credit card charge rendered for payment be returned by the bank for
any reason, the Customer will be notified and a fee will be charged against the account(s) to which the check/EFT had been
credited. The fee will be in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. Should a Customer have two returned
checks or EFTs in a one-year period, the District may require all payments be made by cash, cashier's check, money order or
credit/debit card.
3.7.7
EXTENSIONS
Arrangements may be made between the District and the Customer prior to the due date to extend a due date for a short
period (no more than one week) of time, if the Customer’s payment record within the past year shows no late charges.
However, the Customer must adhere to the terms of the arrangement. Failure to do so will subject the account to the District's
rules and regulations on delinquencies. A fee for delinquent payment will be charged in accordance with the late fee
provisions of the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
3.8
DELINQUENCIES
A bill is delinquent if the District has not received payment by the due date shown on the bill. A fee will be charged in
accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
3.8.1
DELINQUENT BILLS
A delinquent bill will be mailed to the Customer if payment is not made by the due date indicated on the water bill and a fee
will be imposed in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges (See Section 5.3.2).
The delinquent bill will have a due date. If payment in full is not received by this date, water service to the property concerned
will be subject to disconnection. Once disconnected, water restoration will be subject to Section 3.8.4 Restoration of Water
Service.
3.8.2
NOTICE OF PLANNED SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE
17
If payment is not received by the due date of the delinquent bill, a notice of planned shutoff of water service (Notice) will be
mailed at least 15 days prior to the planned shutoff date and not earlier than 19 days from the mailing of the bill.
The Notice will show a service shutoff date. Additionally, if payment of all water bills, fees, charges and deposits is not
received by this date, the District will mail or post a Notice at least 48 hours prior to shutoff. The District will also make a
reasonable effort, using the contact information supplied by the Customer of Record to the District - to contact an adult
person residing at the premises by telephone, at least 24 hours prior to shutoff. If payment of all water bills, fees, charges
and deposits is not received by the end of this time (24 or 48 hours, as applicable) water service may be discontinued without
further notice.
Where the account provides water service to more than one premise (for example, apartment buildings), when practical, a
Notice will be delivered to each location benefiting from the service. If this step is not feasible, copies of the Notice(s) shall
be posted in each common area accessible to residents and point of access to the structure. Additional fees will be charged
for this service, in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. The Notice will inform the tenants that they
have the right to become Customers of Record of the District without paying the delinquent amount due on the landlord’s
account, the requirements for preventing the shutoff or reestablishing service, the estimated monthly cost of service, the
title, address, and telephone number of a representative of the District who can assist the residential occupants in continuing
service; and the address and telephone number of a legal services project, as defined in Section 6213 of the Business and
Professions Code, which has been recommended by the local county bar association
Fees for the Notice of planned shutoff of water service will be in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
3.8.3
SHUTOFF OF WATER SERVICE FOR NONPAYMENT
When water service is terminated for nonpayment, the meter shall be locked, where possible, and a shut off fee assessed.
Fees and charges associated service shutoff are shown in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
Tampering with the lock or turning the water back on, or in any other manner interfering or tampering with the District's
property, is prohibited (See Section 2.3). Penalties for such interference will be charged and the matter may be referred to
the appropriate law enforcement agency at the discretion of the District in accordance with Section 2.2.
3.8.4
RESTORATION OF WATER SERVICE
All amounts owed, including all bills, fees, charges, and deposits, must be paid or otherwise satisfied before service will be
restored. If the meter has been removed, all fees must be paid before the meter is re-installed. Fees for the restoration of
service during normal working hours and limited after-hours processing are shown in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
If payment is not received within ten days of service shutoff, the account will be closed and the balance owed may be turned
over to a collection agency for collection.
3.9
DEPOSITS
Deposits will be required prior to initiation of service, based on creditworthiness as determined by the District in accordance
with criteria established by the General Manager. The amount of the initial deposit to commence water service will be equal
to 2 times the average amount billed per billing cycle (excluding any amount attributable to a verified water leak) for the
property during the previous 24 months. However, the amount of the deposit may be set differently at the discretion of the
District's General Manager in an amount sufficient in his/her judgment to ensure that future bills will be paid when presented,
not to exceed 2 times the amount estimated to be billed for the average billing period.
18
Additional deposits may be required when:
1)
A Notice of planned shutoff of water service is delivered to the service address for a second time;
2)
A service is shutoff for nonpayment;
3)
Service is requested to be reinstated after nonpayment and shutoff of water service and the
original deposit was used to satisfy payment for the water bill;
4)
Water has been used, but the Customer has not notified the District that he/she is
assuming responsibility for the water service;
5)
Any other instance where the Customer's creditworthiness comes into question.
The additional deposit will be set at the discretion of the General Manager in an amount sufficient in his/her
judgment to ensure that future bills will be paid when presented, as permitted by law.
The District will credit fifty percent (50%) of the Customer’s deposit to the account, if all bills have been paid by the
due date of the first notice, for the previous 24 calendar months; the balance of the deposit will be used to pay any
outstanding amount. Interest will not be earned on deposits held by the District. Unused deposits will be credited
to the final bill. The deposit held cannot be used for payment or to offset any fines or charges for any regular bill.
3.10
CUSTOMER INQUIRIES AND COMPLAINTS
All Customer inquiries and complaints will be handled as expeditiously as possible. In some instances, extensive
research will be required, thus extending the time required for resolution, and the Customer will be so informed.
Please refer to Section 3.6.1 for billing disputes.
3.10.1
METER INQUIRIES AND TESTING
If a Customer is concerned that their meter wasn't read correctly, the Customer can request the meter to be read a
second time. If the new reading indicates the original reading was in error, an adjustment will be made to the original
usage charges. If the new reading indicates the original reading was correct the Customer will be responsible for the
original usage charges.
If a Customer is concerned that the meter is not operating correctly or is not accurate, upon written or e-mail
request from the Customer, the District will test the meter for accuracy. Prior to the removal of the meter for testing,
the District shall require a meter test deposit in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. Meter test
deposits will be refunded if the meter is determined to be outside the prescribed limits for meter accuracy.
If the meter is found to be registering 3% or more in excess of the actual quantity flowing through the meter, the
District will replace the defective meter, refund the meter test deposit and refund to the Customer the full amount
of the overcharge based on the corrected meter readings for the previous period, not exceeding six months, that
the meter was in use.
If the meter is not defective and does not register 3% or more excess, the meter test deposit shall be forfeited to
the District and the water bill shall be paid as rendered.
19
If the District discovers an inaccurate or inoperable meter, the meter will be replaced and the Customer will be billed based
on the average consumption for at least twelve preceding months during which the meter was in use and registering correctly.
3.10.2
HIGH WATER USE AND INVESTIGATIONS
Customers may experience high water use due to a leak or other planned or unplanned event (construction, pool filling, new
plantings). No billing adjustment is allowed for leaks or planned or unplanned water consumption; the District must pay for
the water regardless of the intended or unintended use of the water and that cost must be passed along to the Customer of
Record.
Customers may request that the District assist them in the detection of leaks or other conditions, which may result in higher
than normal water usage. Walk-through inspections may be arranged to survey the home or business to assist Customers in
determining leaks and/or isolate probable areas of concern. Such requests will be handled by appointment only.
Appointments may be arranged by contacting the District's customer service staff.
3.10.3
WATER QUALITY INQUIRIES
The District strives to provide Customers with high quality water at all times. If a Customer suspects any problem with the
quality of water provided the Customer may contact the District and a representative will arrange to meet with the Customer
at home or business to investigate the concern. Information regarding analyses of the District's water is available to the public
via a published report that is mailed to each Customer annually.
The District shall not be liable for any damage by water or resulting from defective plumbing, broken or faulty services or
water mains; or resulting from any condition of the water itself, or any substance that may be mixed with or be in the water
as delivered to any Customer. All Applicants and Customers shall be required to accept such conditions of pressure and
service as are provided by the distribution system at the location of the proposed service connection and to hold the District
harmless from all damage arising from low pressure or high pressure conditions.
3.11
BANKRUPTCIES
When the District receives notice that a Customer of Record has filed for bankruptcy, the Customer of Record's account(s)
will be closed, whenever possible, as of the date of the bankruptcy filing and the deposit applied to the balance due. Any
outstanding balances as of that time will be considered covered in the bankruptcy proceedings and the District may file a
claim accordingly with any remaining owners, including mortgage holders. Service will not be terminated and a new account
will be created for the Customer of Record to reinstate service. A deposit will be charged in accordance with Section 3.9.
SECTION 4
4.1
WATER FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES
APPLICATION PROCESS
Any person, firm, or corporation who wishes to install, remove, alter or replace, or cause to be installed, removed, altered,
or replaced, any water facility or appurtenance must obtain a permit from the District to do such work.
20
Any person legally entitled to apply for and receive the permit shall complete the District supplied Water Service Agreement
form. The Applicant shall submit an Application for Water Service Permit/Change form, a complete subdivision map when
applicable and a water facility construction plan showing the proposed service connection thereon, signed by a civil engineer
registered in the State of California. All maps and plans shall be of the size and drawn on material specified in the District's
current Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities. A processing fee shall
be charged pursuant to the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
Whenever reference is made herein to a requirement to be carried out or performed by an Applicant’s or Customer’s
“Contractor,” then to the extent the Contractor and Applicant or Customer are not one and the same, such reference shall
be deemed to state a requirement that the Applicant or Customer shall cause its Contractor to carry out or perform such
requirement. The Applicant or Customer shall be solely responsible for the fulfillment of and compliance with any
requirements of these Rules and Regulations by any Contractor or any other party acting on the Applicant’s or Customer’s
behalf.
4.1.1
PLAN CHECK PROCESS
Plan checking and inspection fees shall be computed by the District according to the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges and
shall be deposited with the District prior to plan approval. After payment of a plan check fee, the District's Engineer, or an
authorized representative, and/or other appropriate staff, will review said map and plans and either approve it or return said
plans to the Applicant with notations showing required changes. All plans must conform to the District's current Standard
Specifications and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities and other requirements specified by
the District, the Orange County Fire Authority and Appropriate Regulatory Agencies before they will be approved.
If the plans are returned to the Applicant with notations showing required changes to be made, the Applicant shall complete
all of the required changes and then resubmit a corrected set of plans. The corrected set of plans will not be accepted unless
the Applicant shall return the previous set of plans containing the notations showing required changes along with the
corrected set of plans.
4.1.2
ISSUING THE PERMIT
Upon approval of said map or plans, and upon receipt of required fees and charges, including Connection Charges, the District
shall validate and issue a Water Service Permit.
The Permit shall be valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. If construction has not commenced within said
year, the Permit shall automatically become invalid and the Applicant shall forfeit all moneys, except Connection Charges,
paid to the District in connection with the Application for a Water Service Permit. The Applicant will be required to reapply
for a new permit and comply with all requirements as if it was the first time an application had been submitted.
4.1.3
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
Before water service is provided, the Applicant shall enter into a Water Service Agreement with the District regarding the
terms under which the District shall provide water service to the Applicant. The Applicant shall complete, sign and submit a
Water Service Agreement. The District shall enter into the Water Service Agreement only upon approval of the development
project and payment by the Applicant of required fees and charges set forth in the Water Service Agreement. No water
21
service shall be provided by temporary water service or by any other means until the Water Service Agreement has been
signed by the District and the Applicant.
4.1.4
FEES AND CHARGES
The District staff will determine the fees and charges for new development in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees
and Charges.
4.1.5
CONNECTION CHARGES
The District has adopted Connection Charges in the amounts specified in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. The fees
will be used to assist the District in paying for the facilities and improvements to the District's water system required by this
development. Provisions in this Section 4.1.5 based upon a difference in Connection Charges corresponding to a difference
in meter size shall apply only to the extent District adopted Connection Charges that vary by meter size at the time of an
Applicant’s or property’s initial connection.
4.1.5.1
CALCULATING THE CONNECTION CHARGE
As herein provided, the amount of any Capacity Charge shall be determined by the District’s engineer, or an authorized
representative, subject to appeal to the General Manager or Board of Directors.
The Connection Charge shall be assessed in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
At the time the Applicant requests meters to be installed, the District will review the assessed Connection Charge. If there
have been changes in the project, which affect the Connection Charges, additional Connection Charges will be assessed or a
refund will be credited to the meter costs. The meters will not be installed until both the meter costs and any additional
Connection Charges have been paid.
No Connection Charges will be assessed if an Applicant is removing a meter and is replacing it with a meter of the same size,
providing that one of the following conditions is also satisfied:
1)
The new meter is installed on the same service line from which the old meter is removed; or
2)
The new meter is installed on a new service line and the existing service line is abandoned when
the old meter is removed.
The District does not assess Connection Charges for automatic fire sprinkler service connections or temporary service
connected to fire hydrants.
4.1.5.2
CALCULATING CONNECTION CHARGE CREDITS ON METERS PULLED AT THE TIME
OF REDEVELOPMENT
The District will apply a Connection Charge credit on an account for meters that will be pulled at the time the property is
redeveloped, providing one of the following conditions is satisfied:
22
1)
The old meter is pulled and the existing service line is permanently abandoned. Any new meters
of a larger size will be installed on new service lines and will be subject to Connection Charges
based upon their size. Any new meters of a smaller size will be installed on new service lines and
will be subject to Connection charges based upon their size.
The District’s engineer or an authorized representative will determine the Connection Charge credit on the meter that is
pulled.
The credit will be based on the Connection Charge in effect for the meter size being pulled according to the building
classification and water use type the meter presently serves.
If the Connection Charge credit exceeds the Connection Charge calculated on the new meters, the excess credit may be
carried forward with the property for additional development. The excess credit will be discounted five percent each year
that it is carried and at the fifteenth year, the credit can no longer be used. Any excess credit may only be used once.
Subsequent excess credit cannot be carried forward.
The number of years used for Connection Charge credit will be determined by calculating the number of years between the
date the Application For Water Service Permit was issued for the redevelopment project for which the credit originated and
the date of completion for the redevelopment project for which the Applicant wishes to use the credit.
4.1.5.3
CALCULATING CONNECTION CHARGE CREDITS ON METERS PULLED PRIOR TO
REDEVELOPMENT
The District will apply a Connection Charge credit on meters pulled prior to the redevelopment of the property providing
that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
1)
The service line to which the meter was once connected is still connected to the District's water
system and is in very good to excellent condition; and
2)
The Pulled Meter was recorded and the record is on file at the District; and
3)
The new meters that will be installed is a downgrade from the meters that were pulled prior to
the redevelopment of the property; and
4)
A new meter can be installed on the service line to which the meter was once connected
because the condition of the service line is very good to excellent.
The District will not apply a Connection Charge credit for meters where both the meter and the service line were abandoned
prior to the redevelopment of the property.
The District’s engineer or an authorized representative will determine the appropriate credit amount.
The credit on the Pulled Meter will be based on the fee in effect for the meter size being replaced according to the building
classification and water use type the meter previously served.
The credit is subject to a five percent reduction for each year that the meter was pulled prior to the Application for Water
Service Permit. No credit will be given for meters that were pulled 15 years or more prior to the date the Application for
Water Service Permit is issued.
23
The number of years that will be used for the reduction in Connection Charge credit will be determined by calculating the
difference between the date on file at the District that the meter was pulled and the date the Application for Water Service
Permit is issued.
In the case where the new meters being installed are the same size as the meters that were pulled, the District will apply a
discount on the amount of the Connection Charge calculated on the new meters, providing all of the following conditions are
satisfied:
1)
The service line to which the meter was once connected is still connected to the District's water
system and is in very good to excellent condition; and
2)
The Pulled Meter was recorded and the record is on file at the District; and
3)
A new meter can be installed on the service line to which the meter was once connected due to
its very good to excellent condition.
The amount of the discount will be based on the length of time since the meter was pulled. The length of time will be
determined by calculating the difference between the date on file at the District that the meter was pulled and the date the
Application for Water Service Permit is issued.
4.1.5.4
APPLICATION OF CONNECTION CHARGES TO PUBLIC AGENCIES
For purposes of this section "Public Agency" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Government Code Section 54999.1(c)
or any successor section thereto.
Any development or application to the District for new or increased water service by any Public Agency shall be subject to a
Connection Charge. The amount of such Connection Charge shall be determined on a case by case basis. The determination
of the Connection Charge with regard to an individual Public Agency development project shall be made based on the same
criteria and methodology applicable to the Connection Fee for non-public Applicants.
The assessment of the Connection Charge on any school district, county office of education, community college district, the
California State University, the University of California or state agency, as defined in Government Code Section 54999.1(g),
(collectively referred to as "School/State Agency" for the purposes of this Section) shall be subject to the following:
The Connection Charge shall be paid by such School/State Agency in an amount equal to the actual construction costs of that
portion of the District's water system actually providing, or needed to provide, service to such School/State Agency.
To the extent that the appropriate Connection Charge to such School/State Agency is in excess of the amount equal to the
actual construction costs, the assessment and collection of said Connection Charges may be adjusted on a case-by-case basis
by the District's General Manager.
4.1.6
BONDS AND CONDITIONS FOR RELEASE OF BONDS
As security for guarantee against defective material or work quality and as security for guarantee of the completion of the
proposed project, the Applicant shall deliver to the District a construction performance bond in accordance with the rate
specified in the Standard Specification and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities. The bond must
be received and approved by the District prior to the District's final approval of plans or issuance of the permit.
24
The District will accept only a cash bond as payment for the bond if the construction estimate for the water facilities is less
than $15,000. If the construction estimate for the water facilities is $15,000 or greater, the District will accept a surety bond
provided the following conditions are met:
(a)
The developer is charged a 1% bond administration fee.
(b)
All bonds are processed on a bond form that will be approved by the District.
The bond, whether a cash or a surety bond, will be eligible for release one year after all of the following conditions have been
satisfied:
1)
All fees and charges are paid current;
2)
The project has been completed to the satisfaction of the District; and
3)
The District has received and has recorded with the County Recorder's office all necessary
documents of conveyance and guarantees.
Approximately one year after all of the above conditions have been satisfied, the District will conduct a follow-up inspection
of the water facilities. If the facilities are free from defective material and work quality, and all fees and charges are current,
the bond will be released. The bond will stay in effect until all conditions are met.
4.1.7
DOCUMENT OF CONVEYANCE AND GUARANTEE
Within 30 days after the completion of construction and testing of water facilities, the Applicant shall deliver to the District
an appropriate document of conveyance. The document will transfer to the District all interest and title to said system and
appurtenances, guaranteed free of all liens, together with necessary rights-of-way for future maintenance and upkeep.
For a period of one year after acceptance of the work by the District, repair and/or replacement of any and all dedicated
facilities that may prove to be defective in work quality and/or materials, together with any other works that may be displaced
in so doing, shall be at the sole cost and expense of the Applicant. Such repair and/or replacement shall be without expense
whatsoever to the District unless the repair and/or replacement were the result of ordinary wear and tear or unusual abuse
or neglect by the District.
In the event of an emergency, as determined by the District, the District shall notify the Applicant of any defect and shall
immediately proceed to have the defects repaired and/or replaced at the expense of the Applicant, who shall pay the costs
and charges upon demand.
In the event that the District becomes aware of a defect in material or work quality, which does not involve an emergency,
the District shall notify the Applicant and the Applicant shall undertake to accomplish the necessary repair or replacement. If
within one week from the date of notification the Applicant has not accomplished the necessary corrective procedures or
made satisfactory arrangements thereof, the District shall proceed to have the defects repaired and/or replaced at the
expense of the Applicant, who shall pay the costs and charges upon demand by the District.
In the event that the Applicant fails to pay for the costs and charges resulting from repairs and/or replacements of the facilities
as provided in this section, the District reserves the right to reduce the amount of, or draw upon, the Applicant's security
bond by the amount necessary to cover any such costs and charges.
4.2
CONSTRUCTION OF WATER FACILITIES
25
The Applicant is encouraged to perform construction with the assistance of a Contractor; however, the Applicant may request
the District to perform the work.
It will be the responsibility of the Contractor to furnish all materials that meet the specifications contained in the then current
edition of the District's Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities. It also
will be the responsibility of the Contractor to provide all labor and equipment necessary to install the water facilities in
conformance with the approved plans and the specifications contained in the latest edition of the Standard Specifications
and Standard Drawings for the Construction of EOCWD Water Facilities.
The District may construct facilities at the District's cost upon approval of the General Manager. The District shall prepare a
cost estimate of the construction. The Applicant must pay a deposit in the amount of the cost estimate before the District
will begin construction. After the work has been completed, the actual cost of the construction will be determined and excess
funds from the deposit will be refunded or the Applicant shall be required to pay the costs in excess of the deposit.
4.2.1
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
The Contractor shall be responsible for researching utility records and indicating the location of all known utilities on the
plans. At least two business days (48 hours) before beginning the work, the Contractor shall call U.S.A. (Underground Service
Alert) for utility owners to mark the location of substructures, except for public sewers and storm drains. It shall be the
Contractor's responsibility to determine the true location and depth of all utilities and service connections. The Contractor
shall become familiar with the type, material, age and condition of any utility that may be affected by the work.
The Contractor shall not interrupt the service function or disturb the supporting base of any utility without authority from
the utility owner or on order from the District.
Where protection is required to ensure support of utilities, the Contractor shall furnish and place the necessary protection at
the Contractor's expense.
The Contractor shall immediately notify the District’s engineer and the utility owner if the Contractor disturbs, disconnects
or damages any utility.
4.2.2
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
The Contractor must adhere to all appropriate CAL/OSHA safety requirements while on the job site. The Contractor shall
have, at the job site, copies or suitable extracts of Construction Safety Orders, Tunnel Safety Orders and General Industrial
Safety Orders issued by the California State Division of Industrial Safety. The Contractor shall comply with provisions of these
and all other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations.
4.2.3
CHARGES FOR DAMAGES
It will be the Contractor's responsibility to "protect in place" all the District facilities. In the event it becomes necessary for
the District to provide assistance to the Applicant, the Contractor or any third party, or to make repairs to the District's
facilities damaged by any of the above, the District will charge the Applicant, Contractor or third party for the actual cost of
assistance and/or repairs plus the District's standard overhead rate.
4.2.4
26
VALVES AND WATER MAIN SHUTDOWNS
It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to keep all valves exposed and accessible at all times. If a water Main shutdown is
required, only the District personnel are authorized to perform shutdown operations. The Contractor shall notify the District
staff and affected users at least 48 hours in advance in areas where shutdown is requested.
4.2.5
THE DISTRICT INSPECTION
All new water facilities shall be subject to inspection by the District or its authorized agent(s). Such facilities shall be installed
in accordance with the latest version of the District's Standard Specifications and Standard Drawings for the Construction of
EOCWD Water Facilities.
The Contractor shall notify District staff at least two business days (48 hours) prior to the commencement of construction of
any water facilities.
Contractors requiring inspection outside the District's normal working hours shall pay the costs of such inspections prior to
installation of water meters. These costs shall include the District's standard overhead rate and overtime rate.
4.2.6
SIZE, LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICES
The District reserves the right to determine the size of the meter and service connection and determine location of the meter
and service connection in relation to boundaries of the premises to be served.
The District reserves the right to limit the number of houses or buildings, or the area of the land that is under one ownership,
to be supplied by one service connection. When property provided with a service connection is subdivided, the service
connection shall be considered as belonging to the lot or parcel of land that it directly enters.
A service connection shall not be used to supply an adjoining property.
If a service connection relocation is more than five feet laterally from the existing service connection, it will be considered a
new service connection.
4.2.7
SERVICE LATERAL, METER INSTALLATION, FEES
All meters shall be provided and installed by the District, either separately or in conjunction with the installation of a service
lateral, and shall remain the property of the District at all times, though committed to a particular service connection, and
shall be maintained, repaired, replaced and read by District personnel. The Applicant shall pay the cost of installing meters
before any meters will be installed. The fees for meter installation will be in accordance with the rates in the Schedule of
Rates, Fees and Charges.
Service laterals, from the point beginning on the customer side of the meter, are the responsibility of the Applicant.
4.2.8
SINGLE METER POLICY
The District's standard metering policy is that individually owned units should be individually metered. Furthermore, all
developments that have five or more units whether individually metered or not, shall install a separate irrigation meter.
However, the District recognizes that there may be local and individual conditions that make individual metering not feasible.
Therefore, the Board delegates to the General Manager the authority to waive the single meter per unit policy on a case by
case basis according to the following standards:
27
1)
The District's policy of appropriate distribution of costs to all consumers still applies. For
example, regardless of whether a party occupies the traditional single-family residence or
occupies a condominium unit, the same Meter Service Charges and Connection Charges, plus the
cost of the water would apply.
2)
A development shall be billed on the greater of the following: The cost of water used, plus the
Service Meter Charge plus the Connection Charge based upon actual meter size, or number of
individual units multiplied by the Service Charge and Connection Charge for the size of meter
that would have been installed at each unit, if the variance had not been granted.
3)
In addition, the District shall require a letter signed by the appropriate officer or agent stating
that the appropriate entity accepts full responsibility for payment of all water bills, and that in
the event of transfer of ownership, the new owner(s), or owners association, accepts full
responsibility for payment.
The District’s engineer shall review each case and make recommendations to the General Manager. The General Manager
shall report to the Board about each variance granted, the location, owner and conditions.
4.2.9
SUBMETERING AND PROHIBITED PRACTICES
4.2.9.1
APPLICATION
This rule pertains to multi-family residential units or mobile home parks located within the District's service boundaries to
which the District provides water service. For purposes of this rule, multi-family residential units shall mean two or more
residential units served from one water meter.
4.2.9.2
PROHIBITED PRACTICES
In the case of multi-family residential units or mobile home parks that install or utilize submeters or a submetering system in
order to allocate the costs of water to tenants, subtenants, lessees or similar persons or parties, the following practices shall
be prohibited (unless authorized in advance in writing by the Board, or by the General Manager at the direction of the Board):
1)
No Customer, or contractor to a Customer, shall represent to any submetered tenant, subtenant,
lessee or similar person or party that such Customer (or such contractor) is a provider of water
service or water services; and
2)
No Customer, or contractor to a Customer, shall terminate, or threaten to terminate, water
service to any submetered tenant, subtenant, lessee or similar person or party by reason of nonpayment of any allocated costs for water.
A violation of this rule occurs whenever the District becomes aware of a violation of Rule 4.2.9.2 (1) or 4.2.9.2 (2), as set forth
above. Upon the District becoming aware that such a violation has occurred, the District shall provide written notice to the
Customer of Record to cure such violation, and the notice shall include; (1) a statement of the nature of the violation, (2) the
date upon which the District became aware of the violation, and (3) a date by which the Customer of Record shall cure such
violation. If such violation is not cured by the date stated in the notice, the provisions of Rule 2.3 of the District's Rules and
Regulations shall apply. Any such violation shall be reported by the General Manager to the Board of Directors, in writing,
together with a description of the action(s) taken to compel enforcement of these Rules and Regulations as soon thereafter
as shall be practical.
28
Customers of Record that have submeter systems attached to the District's water system shall comply with all applicable
laws, statutes and regulations of the State of California and the city in which they are located, or the County of Orange, as
applicable.
The District encourages conservation efforts, including submetering, to support and promote conservation of water use
within its service boundaries; however, the District does not encourage, favor or support any submetering system or process
that is used to generate revenue(s) over and above the fair and reasonable cost of installation of such system, fairly allocated
costs of water and reasonable administrative costs.
4.2.10
AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICE CONNECTIONS
When an automatic fire sprinkler service connection (AFSSC) is installed, the control valve will be left closed and sealed until
a written order to turn on the water is received by the District from the Customer of Record.
After an AFSSC is activated, the District shall not be liable for damages of any kind whatsoever that may occur on or to the
premises served, due to the installation, maintenance, or use of such AFSSC, or due to pressure fluctuations or interruption
of water supply.
The District will not approve any request for an AFSSC be shut off, unless approval is received from the Chief of the appropriate
Fire Authority
Water is not to be used through an AFSSC for any purpose other than the extinguishing of fires, or a purpose related thereto.
The District shall have the right to shut off the entire supply of water to the premises through the AFSSC when improper use
occurs or for nonpayment of bills. The District will notify the appropriate fire department or authority prior to any such
shutoff.
Should water be used through an AFSSC for an unauthorized purpose, the Customer of Record shall be charged for the
unauthorized taking of water in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
4.2.10.1
DOWN-STREAM RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Certain residential dwelling units located within the District's service area may have installed, or may in the future install, fire
sprinkler systems that are connected down-stream of the District's service meter (Point of Ownership) (for purposes of this
Section, a "System"). The District hereby provides notice that it is not responsible, and assumes no liability of any kind, for
the installation, ownership, operation or use of any such System. The provisions of Sections 2.4 and 2.5 of these Rules and
Regulations shall apply to any such System. The District expressly declines to provide, or guarantee, any particular water
service, or pressure, to a District Customer, or customer account, that has such a System, and no contractual obligation
therefore shall arise, whether through a Water Service Agreement or otherwise, without the express prior written agreement
of the Board. The District assumes no liability whatsoever for any injuries or damages, of whatever nature, that arise or occur
based on the installation, ownership or use of any such System. The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to, and not
in derogation of, The District's statutory protections applicable to such matters.
4.2.11
FIRE HYDRANT INSTALLATION
The appropriate fire department or authority having jurisdiction shall designate the size and location of all fire hydrants to be
installed. Fire hydrants shall be installed in the parking and/or sidewalk area adjacent to the curb. Upon request and approval
by the appropriate fire agency the District will change the location of fire hydrants when necessary.
29
4.2.12
WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS, ENLARGEMENTS AND OTHER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS
The District will extend its water distribution Mains to individual developers at the expense of the property owner. If the
District deems it necessary to install larger Mains for future use, the District may enter into a development agreement and
may share a portion of the cost of the extension or may enter into a benefited property agreement (Section 4.2.13)
4.2.13
BENEFITED PROPERTY AGREEMENT
In the event that a mainline extension or a new mainline will benefit adjacent properties and/or future use, at its discretion,
the District may enter into a benefited property agreement with developer(s) of the adjacent properties. All terms and
conditions of such a benefited property agreement will be subject to approval by the District’s Board of Directors.
4.2.14
REGULATION OF BOOSTER PUMPS
When it becomes necessary, due to low water pressure or special operating conditions, to install a booster pump on the
service to any premise, such pump shall be equipped with a low pressure cut-off switch designed to shutoff the pump when
a water pressure gauge on the inlet side indicates 25 pounds per square inch or lower. It shall be the duty of the Customer of
Record to maintain the cut-off device in proper working order and certify to the District, at least once a year that the device
is operable. A person deemed competent by the District shall execute low-pressure cut-off device certification.
4.2.15
METER DOWNSIZING REQUESTS
No refund of connection charges for changes under this section.
The District will entertain a request for downsizing of a residential meter under the following conditions:
A Customer of Record who wishes to change the meter size of an installed meter and does not have an Automatic Fire
Suppression Sprinkler System (AFSSC) served by their meter shall submit a Meter Downsizing Request form, along with a
processing fee pursuant to the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. Within 30 days of submittal of the application, the
District General Manager shall review such application and make a determination whether to allow the requested meter size
for the property. Such decision may be appealed to the District Board of Directors, provided requesting party submits a
request for hearing within 45 days of General Manager’s initial determination.
SECTION 5
5.1
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICES
TEMPORARY CONNECTIONS
On a case-by-case basis, the District will allow the use of temporary connections to the District's water system when water
service is needed only for construction purposes. The District reserves the right to require the Applicant to use an existing
service connection whenever feasible.
30
The District reserves the right at any time to set a meter on any temporary service connection and collect the required
deposits, and thereafter charge the regular metered rate for the kind of service to be rendered.
All meters set on temporary service connections will be read by the District on a monthly basis, and all temporary service
accounts will be billed monthly.
5.2
HYDRANT METERS
Water may be procured from fire hydrants for construction or other purposes only in the manner prescribed in these Rules
and Regulations. When water is to be procured from a fire hydrant, the Applicant shall sign a Rules For Hydrant Meters For
Construction Water Service form and also a Hydrant Meter Activity Report and Permit, wherein the Applicant shall specify
the location of the fire hydrant to be used, the anticipated length of use and shall agree to make the required deposit to the
District. Copies of both forms shall be issued to the Applicant and shall constitute authority to procure and make such limited
use from the fire hydrant therein designated, through a the District supplied hydrant meter.
The hydrant permit shall be valid for one (1) month and must be renewed for each additional month. Illegal use of a hydrant
meter, including without limitation the failure to renew the permit, is subject to the penalties in Section 7.
Only District personnel are allowed to install or remove fire hydrant meters unless the fire hydrant meter is being installed
on a private hydrant, with prior approval of the District’s engineer and the General Manager. If the fire hydrant meter is being
placed on a private hydrant, The District staff will monitor the placement of the fire hydrant meter upon the private hydrant.
The District shall not assume any liability for damage to private hydrants. Prior to installation of the meter, the permit holder
must pay a construction meter charge in accordance with the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges. The permit holder is
required to give the District at least one business day (24 hours) notice when requesting the installation of a fire hydrant
meter.
Unless the Applicant has applied for, and has been granted, a permit for a roving fire hydrant meter, only the District staff
may relocate a fire hydrant meter. The permit holder must give the District at least one business day (24 hours) notice when
requesting meter relocation or a relocation fee will be assessed. The construction meter charge will be in accordance with
the rates listed in the Schedule of Rates, Fees and Charges.
The permit holder of a roving fire hydrant meter account shall inform the District as to the location of the meter at all times.
Failure to do so may result in additional charges.
The permit holder is responsible for paying the costs of repairing any damages to the meters or hydrants. These costs will be
the actual cost of repairs plus the District's standard labor overhead rate.
5.3
PAYMENT
5.3.1
REGULAR MONTHLY BILLS
Payment is due 25 days from the billing date. Closing bills are due upon receipt.
31
5.3.2
DELINQUENT BILLS
A bill will be delinquent if the District does not receive payment by the due date shown on the bill. A late fee on the unpaid
balance will be charged. If payment is not received in full, the District may refer the account to a collection agency. If the
outstanding balance is referred to a collection agency, the customer is responsible for payment of the outstanding balance
plus collection agency fees and administrative fees.
32
SECTION 6
6.1
CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW PREVENTION
INTRODUCTION
The District recognizes that it has a responsibility to take all reasonable precautions to protect the public water supply. Thus,
in the exercise of this responsibility, the District must take all reasonable precautions to protect the District's water system
from the hazards originating on the premises of its Customers that may degrade the water in the District's water system.
To affect such precautions, the District, has adopted these Rules and Regulations pursuant to the State of California
Administrative Code, Title 17 - Public Health entitled "Regulations Relating to Cross Connections."
In addition to the District's Rules and Regulations for Water Service, the Customer must comply with Public Law 99-339 - the
Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments, all state and local regulations including but not limited to Title 17 - Regulations
Relating to Cross Connections, and the latest edition of the Manual of Cross Connection Control from the Foundation for
Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research, University of Southern California.
These Rules and Regulations were written to assist the District in safeguarding the District's Potable Water supply. The District
cannot, and will not, be held liable for actions by others that are beyond the District's control, including, but not limited to,
willful sabotage, deceptive or fraudulent activities and acts of nature. These Rules and Regulations do not provide regulatory
measures for protection of water users from the hazards of Cross Connection within the water users own premises.
6.2
GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.2.1
PROTECTION
Protection shall be accomplished by isolating within the premises, any and all used, degraded, contaminated or polluted
water or other liquids, mixtures or substances. The District recognizes that there are varying degrees of potential and actual
hazards; consequently, the degree of protection shall be commensurate with the degree of hazard.
6.2.2
BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES
Backflow prevention devices shall be provided and maintained by the Applicant, owner or Customer of Record at his/her
expense. Such devices shall be located on the premises of the property served and shall not be installed on the District's
portion of the water system.
6.2.3
UNPROTECTED CROSS CONNECTIONS
Unprotected Cross Connections to the public water supply are prohibited.
6.2.4
NEW SERVICE REQUESTS
The District shall review all requests for new service to determine if Backflow protection is needed. Plans and specifications
must be submitted to the District for review of possible Cross Connection hazards as a condition of service for new service
connections.
6.2.5
PROTECTION REQUIRED BEFORE GRANTING SERVICE
33
Whenever Backflow protection is found necessary, the District will require the Customer of Record or Applicant to install an
approved Backflow prevention device at the Customer's expense for continued services or before a new service is approved.
6.2.6
PROTECT ALL WATER LINES
Wherever Backflow protection is necessary on a water supply line entering a Customer's premises, any and all water service
lines from the District's Mains entering such premises, buildings or structures shall be protected by an approved Backflow
prevention device. The type of device to be installed will be in accordance with the requirements of these Rules and
Regulations.
6.3
WHERE PROTECTION IS REQUIRED
6.3.1
PREMISES HAVING AN AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY
Premises that have an auxiliary water supply shall be protected against Backflow of water from the premises into the public
water system, unless the auxiliary water supply is accepted as an additional source by the District and is approved by the
public health agency having jurisdiction.
6.3.2
PREMISES HANDLING PROCESSED WATER
Premises on which any substance is handled in such fashion that it may allow its entry into the water system, shall be
protected against backflow of the water from the premises into the public water system. Such substances include, but are
not limited to, the handling of processed waters and waters originating from the District’s water system subjected to
deterioration in sanitary quality.
6.4
PREMISES HAVING OR POSSIBLY HAVING CROSS CONNECTIONS
Premises that have any one of the following shall be protected against Backflow of the water from the premises into the
public water system:
6.5
1)
Internal Cross Connections;
2)
Intricate plumbing and piping arrangements susceptible to Cross Connection; or
3)
Where entry to all portions of the premises is not readily accessible for inspection
purposes, making it impracticable or impossible to ascertain whether or not Cross
Connections exist.
TYPE OF PROTECTION
6.5.1
TYPE OF BACKFLOW DEVICE
The type of approved Backflow prevention device shall depend upon the degree of hazard. The decision as to when, where
and which device to be used shall be made at the discretion of the District and shall depend upon the facts of each particular
situation.
In determining the degree of hazard and the type of approved Backflow device required, the following principles shall apply:
34
6.5.1.1
HEALTH OR SYSTEM HAZARD
An approved air-gap separation or an approved reduced pressure principle Backflow prevention device shall be used where
there is an existing or potential health or system hazard.
6.5.1.2
POLLUTION HAZARD
A double check valve assembly is to be used where there is an existing or potential pollution hazard only.
6.6 APPLICATION
6.6.1
STRUCTURES OF MORE THAN TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT
At the service connection to any premises, where there are more than two stories in height above the service connection, an
approved Backflow prevention device shall protect the District water supply. Devices may be required for residential buildings
on a case-by-case basis.
6.6.2
RECIRCULATING WATER
At the service connection to any premises containing recirculating water systems (hot or cold), the District water supply shall
be protected by an approved Backflow prevention device.
6.6.3
FIVE OR MORE UNITS
At the service connection to any premises where there are multiple units or dwellings that have five or more individual units
being serviced through one metering system, the District water supply shall be protected by an approved Backflow prevention
device.
6.6.4
HEALTH OR SYSTEM HAZARD FROM AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY
At the service connection to any premises, where there is an auxiliary water supply that may constitute a health or system
hazard, an approved air-gap separation or an approved reduced pressure principle Backflow assembly, or both, shall be
installed.
6.6.5
SEWAGE AND STORM DRAIN FACILITIES
At the service connection to any wastewater treatment plant, wastewater pumping station or storm water pumping station,
the District water supply shall be protected by an approved air-gap separation. All piping between the meter and the receiving
vessel shall be entirely visible. If, in the opinion of The District, an air-gap separation provides insufficient protection, The
District may require installation of an additional approved Backflow prevention device(s).
6.6.6
HOSPITALS, MORTUARIES, ETC.
35
At the service connection to hospitals, medical and dental buildings, mortuaries and other premises where special hazards
exist, the District water supply shall be protected by an approved reduced pressure principle Backflow prevention assembly.
6.6.7
COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
At the service connection to any premises containing commercial or industrial buildings subject to varying and unknown use,
the District water supply shall be protected by an approved Backflow prevention device.
6.6.8
FIRELINE SERVICES
Approved Double Check Detector Assembly (DCDA) shall be installed on all fireline services, except where, in the opinion of
The District, the DCDA does not provide sufficient Backflow protection. In this case, The District will require the installation
of an approved Reduced Pressure Principle Detector Assembly (RPDA).
6.6.9
IRRIGATION SERVICES
Meters serving only irrigation systems shall be protected by an approved reduced pressure principle Backflow prevention
device.
6.7
INSTALLATION
6.7.1
ONLY THE DISTRICT APPROVED DEVICES
Only Backflow prevention devices that have been approved by the District and the California Department of Public Health
Office of Drinking Water shall be acceptable for installation on a service connection. Upon request, the District will provide a
list of approved Backflow prevention assemblies.
6.7.2
INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS
Backflow prevention devices shall be installed in a manner prescribed in Section 7603, Title 17 of the California Administrative
Code and they shall be installed on the Customer's side of, and as close to the service connection as is practical. The device
shall be installed a minimum of twelve inches (12") and a maximum of thirty-six inches (36") above final grade measured from
the concrete pad to the bottom of the device and with a minimum of twelve inches (12") clearance on either side. The device
shall be installed so that it is readily accessible for maintenance and testing. The District shall have the final authority in
determining the required location of a Backflow prevention device.
6.7.3
REPLACEMENT OF OBSOLETE DEVICES
The Customer of Record must replace obsolete Backflow prevention devices when notified by the District that the device is
no longer appropriate or acceptable. An obsolete device may be upgraded provided that a factory manufactured upgrading
kit is available. The upgraded Backflow prevention device must be approved by the District and the California Department
of Public Health Office of Drinking Water.
6.7.4
36
TESTING NEW DEVICES
As soon as the installation of the Backflow prevention device has been completed, the Customer of Record shall have the
device tested by a certified tester, and submit the test results to the District within ten days of the test date. An Orange
County Health Department approved list of local certified testers may be obtained at the District's offices.
6.7.5 RIGHT TO REJECT
The District reserves the right to reject any installation or device.
6.8 INSPECTION AND TESTING
6.8.1
ORIGINAL TEST
All Backflow prevention devices shall be inspected, tested and certified as operational when the device is originally installed
or relocated. All tests shall be conducted by a certified tester who shall prepare a report certifying that the device has been
tested and is operating satisfactorily.
6.8.2
ANNUAL TEST BY CERTIFIED TESTER
At the expense of the Customer of Record, all Backflow prevention devices shall be inspected, tested and certified as
operational at least once a year. All tests shall be conducted by a certified tester who shall prepare a report certifying that
the device has been tested and is operating satisfactorily.
6.8.2.1
FIRST NOTIFICATION
The District will notify each Customer of Record and supply the necessary forms for Backflow prevention device testing when
it is time for the annual Backflow prevention test. The Customer of Record shall have 30 days to comply with the Backflow
prevention device testing requirements. The District will not accept test results on unapproved forms or from unapproved
Backflow prevention device testers.
6.8.2.2
SECOND NOTIFICATION
A second notice shall be sent to each Customer of Record who does not have the Backflow prevention device tested within
the 30-day period as prescribed in the first notice. The second notice will give the Customer of Record a two-week period to
have the Backflow prevention device tested. If no action is taken within the two-week period, the District may terminate
water service to the Customer's premises until the subject device is tested and the necessary certification provided to the
District.
6.8.2.3
CUSTOMER OF RECORD'S RESPONSIBILITY
The Customer of Record shall cause annual tests to be made of the device at the expense of the Customer of Record. Defective
devices shall be repaired, overhauled or replaced immediately at the expense of the Customer of Record. As a courtesy the
District provides a notice of annual testing, but failure to receive such notice shall not relieve the Customer of Record of
requirements under this section.
37
6.8.2.4
REPORTS
Reports of inspections, tests, repairs, overhauling of the device and corrections made shall be submitted to the District within
ten days of the test date by the certified tester. Such reports shall be submitted to the District on forms supplied by the
District. No other forms will be accepted.
6.8.3
RANDOM TESTS AND INSPECTIONS OF DEVICES
The District will maintain a program of random or spot testing of various Backflow prevention devices at no cost to the
Customer of Record. This testing may be done at the time of installation and periodically thereafter. This testing will in no
way relieve the Customer of Record from responsibility for maintaining functional devices, but will serve to help assure that
the program is serving its intended purpose.
6.8.4
ON-PREMISE INSPECTION BY THE DISTRICT
The District may, at its discretion, require an on-premises inspection for Cross Connection hazards on any property to which
it serves water. The District will transmit a written notice requesting an inspection appointment to each Customer of Record.
Any Customer or Customer of Record who cannot or will not allow an on-premise inspection of the piping system shall be
required to install any Backflow prevention device that the District considers necessary.
6.8.5
MORE FREQUENT INSPECTION
Where successive annual reports indicate defective operation of a Backflow prevention device, the District may require more
frequent inspections and/or require replacement of the device.
6.8.6
DUTY OF TESTER
The certified tester shall be responsible for the competency of inspections, corrective actions and the accuracy of reports
required under this Section and the District's code of conduct for Backflow assembly testers.
6.8.7
TESTING METHODS
Test results of Backflow prevention devices will only be accepted if performed in accordance with the methods used by the
Foundation for Cross Connection Control and Hydraulic Research at the University of Southern California and County of
Orange/Health Care Agency/Environmental Health.
6.9
TERMINATION
6.9.1
BASIS FOR TERMINATION
The District may immediately discontinue service to any premises where an actual or potential Cross Connection or other
hazard to the District's water supply is found to exist. Any Customer who violates any of the provisions of these Rules and
Regulations or alters, bypasses or renders inoperative, or removes any installed Backflow prevention device, or fails to test
the device as required, shall be subject to immediate termination of water service. Conditions that create a basis for water
service termination shall include, but are not limited to, the following items:
38
6.9.2
1.
Refusal to install a required Backflow prevention device.
2.
Refusal to test a Backflow prevention device.
3.
Refusal to repair a faulty Backflow prevention device.
4.
Refusal to replace a faulty Backflow prevention device.
5.
Direct or indirect connection between the District’s water system and a sewer line.
6.
Unprotected direct or indirect connection between the District's water system and a system or
equipment containing contaminants.
7.
Unprotected direct or indirect connection between the District's water system and an auxiliary water
system.
8.
A situation that presents an immediate health hazard to the District's water system.
9.
Failure to comply with other provisions of the District's Rules and Regulations for Water Service.
TERMINATION PROCEDURES
For conditions 1 through 4 stated in Section 6.9.1, the District will terminate service to a Customer's premises after two
written notices have been sent specifying the corrective action needed and the time period in which it must be taken. If no
action is taken within the allowed time period, water service may be terminated without further notice.
For conditions 5 through 9 stated in Sections 6.9.1 the District will make a reasonable effort to advise the Customer of the
intent to terminate water service before termination.
SECTION 7
7.1
ENFORCEMENT
NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS
No new service connections shall be completed, nor meters installed, until all provisions of the Rules and Regulations have
been satisfied.
7.2
EXISTING SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Existing service connections shall comply with all provisions of the Rules and Regulations. If it is found that the service is out
of compliance, the service will be brought into compliance with all provisions of the Rules and Regulations when the Customer
of Record is notified by the District. Failure to comply shall result in termination of water service.
7.3
TERMINATION OF WATER SERVICE
The District may terminate service for violation of these Rules and Regulations, including termination as provided under
Section 2.6 and Section 6.9.
39
Water service shall not be restored until hazards are eliminated and/or violations have been corrected to the satisfaction of
the District. Nor shall water service be restored until the District has received reimbursement for any costs incurred in
terminating the water service and advance payment for the cost of service restoration. The District will pursue recovery of
actual costs including legal fees and any penalties.
7.4
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ACTIONS
Violation of these Rules and Regulations may constitute a public nuisance within the meaning of Health and Safety Code
Section 4036 and Penal Code Section 372. Violators may be subject to civil actions for abatement and/or damages (Civil Code
Section 3479, et seq.) and Criminal Penalties of up to $500 or both (Penal Code Section 29). Customers may also be assessed
a fine of $500 per day by the District for violation of the Rules and Regulations.
40
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
RETAIL ZONE
MONTHLY METER CHARGES/SERVICE
CHARGES AND DELIVERED WATER
SERVICE CHARGES
(Inclusive of Changes Effective August 18, 2014)
Domestic Delivered Water Rate, per 100 cubic feet (CCF) (748 gallons) ...........................................2.67
Monthly ServiceMeter Charge:
518"
3/4"
1"
1-1/2"
2"
3"
Meter..............................................................................................................................18.10
Meter............................................................................................................................. 20.50
Meter............................................................................................................................. 34.25
Meter .............................................................................................................................52.00
Meter..............................................................................................................................90.75
Meter............................................................................................................................128.75
Monthly Fee for Existing -Water System Capital Projects .................................................................. 20.00
Construction Water, per CCF (748 gallons) .......................................................................................... 2.67
Flat Rate per month for 3” Construction Meter……………………………………………………. 128.75
Refundable Construction Meter Deposit..........................................................................................1,000.00
Service Establishment:
Deposit...................................two times average bill for previous 24 months at service address
Meter Test Deposit.............................................................................................................................. 75.00
Meter Downsizing Request Processing Fee.........................................................................................25.00
Service Charges:
Processing charge for service discontinued for non- payment (normal
working hours) ........................................................................................................................ 50.00
Additional after-hours processing charge for service discontinued for
non-payment (applies between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m.; no processing
after 8:00 p.m.)........................................................................................................................ 20.00
Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or Credit Card.................................................................................. 1%
Fee for Notification of Tenants of Lessor Delinquent Charges ........................................................... 25.00
Fee for Notice of Planned Shutoff......................................actual personnel hourly rate plus overhead cost
Delinquency Penalty (after 30 days) .................................................................................................... 15.00
Collection Processing Charge
(Applies to accounts turned over to collection service for collection).................................... 35%
New Connection Charge, Per Residential Unit
(Includes retail water system capacity charge; does not include cost of
meter setting, service lateral, main extension or reimbursement for
main extension) .................................................................................................................. 2500.00
Service Lateral Installation Charge, Per Residential Unit
(Includes 1-inch meter setting; extra charge for larger meter, based
on cost; installation of up to fifteen ( 15) feet of lateral, from meter
box to main; extra charge for additional length or non-standard site
conditions, based on cost) ................................................................................................... 2500.00
Dishonored Check or EFT or Credit Card Charge ............................................................................... 30.00
Plan Check/Construction Inspection Deposit
(Percentage of estimated cost of water improvements constructed; if
actual plan checking and inspection costs exceed deposited amounts,
additional deposit(s) will be required, and if actual costs are less than
deposited amount(s), excess will be refunded without interest)
Amount up to $25,000................................................................................................................10%
Amount over $25,000...................................................................................................................6%
Minimum Fee (non-refundable) ............................................................................................ 400.00
EAST
ORA.NBE
Treasurer's
Report
COUNTY
\l'1l.u. 'f' E !]t
OHSTRlCT
April 13, 2015
Board of Directors
East Orange County Water District
DIRECTORS
Richard E. Barrett
Richard B, Bell
Douglass S, Davert
John Dulebohn
William Vanderwerff
Lisa Ohlund
General Manager
The accompanying information contained in Schedule 1, Distribution of Investment
Activity for the month March 2015, and Schedule 2, Investment Portfolio, as of
March 31, 2015 (which are presented only for supplementary analysis purposes)
have been prepared by management who is responsible for their integrity and
objectivity. These schedules have not been compiled, reviewed or audited by
outside accountants.
East Orange County Water District maintains a system ofintemal accounting control
designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that
transactions are properly executed, recorded and summarized to produce reliable
records and reports.
To the best of management's knowledge and belief, the schedules and related
information were prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles, and are based on recorded transactions and management's best estimates
and judgments.
Carl R. Schoonover
Treasurer
185 N Mc Pherson Road
Orange, CA 92869-3720
www.cocwd.com
Ph:
Fax:
(714) 538-5815
(714) 538-0334
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SCHEDULE 1 - INVESTMENT ACTIVITY
MONTH OF MARCH 2015
SECURITY
BOOK
TYPE
VALUE
BEGINNING BALANCES MARCH 1, 2015
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
RAYMOND JAMES-CDs
DUE TO FROM OTHER FUNDS
US TREASURY OBLIGATIONS
!rl.
f )~
DEMANDLAIF
DEMAND BROKERAGE
DUE TO/FROM
US TREASURY
'"Ii 'J!!
ACTIVITY
ADDITIONS
DEPOSIT TO LAIF-FROM CHECKING
DEPOSIT TO LAIF-INTEREST
DEPOSIT TO RAYMOND JAMES-FROM CHECKING
DEPOSIT TO RAYMOND JAMES-INTEREST
SOLD MS LS US TREAS
TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS
REDUCTIONS
TRANSFER FROM LAIF TO CHECKING
TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS
TRANSFERS TO CHECKING
TRANSFER TO RAYMOND JAMES
SOLD US TREASURY BOND
MATURITY OF US TREASURY NOTE
PURCHASE US TREASURY BOND FED STRIP
o
o
o
o
DEMANDMM
DEMANDLAIF
DEMANDLAIF
DEMAND BROKERAGE
DEMAND BROKERAGE
MUTUAL FUND
DUE TO/FROM
1,623
o
o
DEMAND LAIF
DUE TO/FROM
DEMANDMM
DEMANDMM
US TREASURY BOND/NOTE
US TREASURY NOTE
TREASURY BOND
ENDING BALANCES MARCH 31, 2015
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
RAYMOND JAMES-CDs and CASH
DUE TO FROM OTHER FUNDS
US TREASURY OBLIGATIONS
'~,'II"
"~ii'
~,
~I
DEMAND LAIF
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
DUE TO/FROM
US TREASURY
~.~
i\!
t:~, ~
'
"'"
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
SCHEDULE 2 -INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
"MARCH 31, 2015
NAME
LAIF
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ-CD
RJ
SECURITY TYPE
AND NUMBER
PURCHASE
DATE
DEMAND
AMERICAN EXPRESS
BMW BANK OF N AMERICA
CIT BANK
DISCOVER BANK
DISCOVER BANK
EVERBANK
GE MONEY BANK
GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK
GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK
GOLDMAN SACHS BANK
GOLDMAN SACHS BANK
SYNCHRONY BANK
CASH
N/A
10/25/12
11/19/12
03/06/13
10/17/12
02/20/13
01/30/15
10/25/12
11/19/12
02/22/13
02/13/13
10/11/12
01/30/15
N/A
I
MATURITY
DATE
N/A
07/27/15
11/12/15
03/06/18
10/17/16
02120/18
11/15/19
08/31/17
11/09/16
02/22/18
02113118
10/03/17
01/30/20
N/A
INTEREST
YIELD
STATED I
0.278%
1.000%
2.000%
1.100%
1.200%
1.100%
1.500%
1.650%
1.350%
1.100%
1.200%
1.550%
1.800%
0.000%
I
MARKET
VALUE
PURCHASE
PRICE
PREMIUM OR
(DISCOUNT) *
ACCRUED
INTEREST"
-11
0
6,460,042
100,000
100,000
145,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
150,000
38,426
80.82%
1.25%
1.25%
1.81%
1.25%
1.88%
1.88%
1.25%
1.25%
1.88%
1.88%
1.25%
1.88%
0.48%
$2,492
$823
$7,993,469
100.00%
6,460,042
100,244
100,936
145,682
101,043
149,246
147,237
101,157
100,937
149,240
149,685
100,852
150,674
38,426
6,460,042
100,000
102,937
145,000
100,000
150,000
148,818
100,998
100,536
150,000
150,000
99,977
150,000
38,426
0
0
2,898
0
0
0
-1,650
754
499
0
0.484%
$7,995,399
$7,996,736
* Monthly adjustments to interest income should be made to amortize accrued interest and premiums/discounts
CERTIFICATION
I CERTIFY THAT (1) ALL INVESTMENT ACTIONS EXECUTED SINCE THE LAST REPORT HAVE BEEN MADE IN FULL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE DISTRICT'S INVESTMENT POLICY AND,(2) THE DISTRICT WILL MEET ITS EXPENDITURE
OBLIGATIONS FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS AS REQUIRED BY CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS
53646(b)(2) AND (3), RESPECTIVELY.
CARL R. SCHOONOVER, TREASURER
%TO
PORTFOLIO
0
0
38
0
0
0
468
244
37
0
0
34
0
0.278%
1.000%
2.000%
1.100%
1.200%
1.100%
1.740%
1.650%
1.350%
1.100%
1.200%
1.550%
1.800%
0.020%
LAIF=LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND
RJ=RAYMOND JAMES
FACE
VALUE
to face value at maturity.
Wholesale Zone Financial Summary
For Period Ending February 28, 2015
YTD Operating Income
$ 4,042,122
YTD Operating Expense
Revenue vs. Expenses
$ 3,983,517
Water Purchased Budget vs. Actual
800,000
1,200,000
700,000
1,000,000
600,000
800,000
500,000
400,000
Revenue
300,000
Expense
200,000
600,000
Budget
400,000
Expense
200,000
100,000
‐
‐
Salaries & Benefits Budget vs. Actual
CIP Budget & Actual
50,000
700,000
45,000
600,000
40,000
500,000
35,000
30,000
400,000
25,000
Budget
20,000
Expense
15,000
10,000
Budget
300,000
Expense
200,000
100,000
5,000
‐
‐
O&M Budget vs. Actual
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
‐
Budget
Expense
WHOLESALE ZONE
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
2014-2015 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
DESCRIPTION
REVENUE
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
REVENUE
YTD
ACTUAL
REVENUE
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
1
2
3
4
5
6
OPERATING REVENUE:
WATER SALES
FIXED CHARGES
EOCWD FIXED CHARGES
REIMBURSED EXP-IRWD
OTHER CHARGES
167,543
50,233
24,050
177
2,932,052
384,188
194,699
(6,314)
21,652
4,900,985
569,135
301,136
25,000
11,388
(1,968,933)
(184,947)
(106,437)
(31,314)
10,263
7
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE:
242,003
3,526,278
5,807,645
(2,281,367)
8
9
10
11
12
13
NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
PROPERTY TAXES
RENTAL INCOME - CELLULAR ANTENNAS
INTEREST & INVESTMENT EARNINGS
NOTE RECEIVABLE - AMP
MISCELLENOUS INCOME (EXPENSE)
2,975
8,221
2,572
50
400,784
100,692
13,817
142
410
674,000
106,000
20,141
20,000
500
(273,216)
(5,308)
(6,324)
(19,858)
(90)
14
TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUES, NET
13,817
515,844
820,641
(304,797)
15
NET OPERATING INCOME
255,821
4,042,122
6,628,285
(2,586,164)
DESCRIPTION
EXPENSES
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
YTD
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OPERATING EXPENSE:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
MET/MWDOC FIXED CHARGE
EOCWD FIXED CHARGE
ENERGY
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENSE & RESERVES
DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION
MARKET VALUE ADJUSTMENT ON INVESTMENTS
167,431
32,051
18,183
132
44,414
17,975
22,015
(1,872)
2,930,846
245,092
145,460
1,273
307,274
170,212
176,121
7,239
4,900,984
365,462
212,050
2,600
596,456
324,176
220,391
-
(1,970,138)
(120,370)
(66,590)
(1,327)
(289,182)
(153,965)
(44,270)
7,239
26
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
300,328
3,983,517
6,622,119
(2,638,603)
(44,507)
58,605
6,166.248725
-
-
(44,507)
58,605
27 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS
28 PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
29 NET INCOME (LOSS)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
59.83%
67.50%
64.65%
-25.25%
190.12%
59.46%
94.99%
68.60%
0.71%
81.97%
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
59.80%
67.06%
68.60%
48.95%
51.52%
52.51%
79.91%
0.00%
0.00%
52,439
(6,167)
6,167
(0)
46,272
Page 2
Wholesale Zone February 2015 Variance Report ‐ 66% of Budget Year Expended
Account Number
Account Name
Income(I) Expense (E)
YTD Amount Percent Received/ Spent
Comments
New
5359-0001-1
SAC LINE R&M
E
16,889
168.89% YTD is high due to higher maintenance fees than expected
4112-0001-1
4134-0001-1
4160-0060-1
4160-0065-1
4930-0031-1
4930-0032-1
4990-0001-1
4977-0001-1
LATE CHARGE
MET-MWDOC CHOICE-WS
REIMBURSED EXPENSES-IRWD
REFUNDS
TAXES-UNSECURED
TAXES SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
RENT INCOME- CROWN CASTLE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
45
8,377
(6,314)
11,789
18,884
10,222
410
64,848
90.00%
100.00%
-25.25%
0.00%
125.90%
204.44%
81.97%
127.15%
5130-0048-1
5324-0001-1
5350-0041-1
EOCF #2 NONINTERR OC 48
REGULATORY PERMITS
SERVICE CONNECTIONS R&M
E
E
E
842,295
3,665
4,337
5350-0051-1
5365-0001-1
5646-0001-1
5480-0070-1
5610-0009-1
5610-0015-1
5616-0001-1
5639-0001-1
5645-0001-1
5670-0072-1
RESERVOIRS R&M
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
COMPUTER CONSULTING
PAYROLL TAXES- SUI & ETT
MCPHERSON FAX
MCPHERSON OFFICE PHONES
MILEAGE
OUTSIDE SERVICES
LEGAL
OFFICE EQUIPMENT R&M
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
20,435
13,904
1,835
828
248
1,810
522
5,985
41,196
564
E
40,150
Ongoing
YTD is high due to unanticipated revenue
Yearly payment made in July
YTD is negative due to billing IRWD in Prior Year
Unanticipated MWDOC refund for Tier 2 water relating to PY
YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
YTD is high due to unanticpated revenue
YTD is high due to payment received relating to prior years
86.02% YTD is high due to time of year (selling more water)
73.30% YTD is high due to unanticipated SWRCB Fees
289.10% YTD is high due to replacement of production IRWD
production meter
102.17% YTD is high due to tree services
124.70% YTD is high due to generator rental
73.40% YTD is high due to under budgeted account
103.00% YTD is high due to timing of the year
82.83% YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
78.70% YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
129.83% YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
119.69% YTD is high due to Public Relations fees
82.39% YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
188.11% YTD is over budget due to work performed by KMS Network
Solutions
Capital Projects
New
Ongoing
7914-201C-2
REPLACE BACKHOE
160.60% YTD is high due to expenses being higher than anticipated
Page 3
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
FOR WHOLESALE
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
YTD
ACTUAL
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
REVENUE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
WATER SALES
METER CHARGE
LATE CHARGE
CONNECTION FEES
EOCWD RESERVE FUND CHARGE
EOCWD READINESS TO SERVE CHARGE
RETAIL SERVICE CONNECTIONS
MET-MWDOC READINESS TO SERVE
MET-MWDOC CAPACITY CHARGE
MET-MWDOC CHOICE-WS
REIMBURSED EXPENSES-IRWD
REFUNDS
Total OPERATING REVENUE:
167,543
177
19,286
4,764
18,183
17,155
14,896
242,003
2,932,052
1,441
45
2,300
154,286
38,113
145,460
148,010
90,718
8,377
(6,314)
11,789
3,526,278
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
NON OPERATING INCOME
INTEREST EARNED-DEMAND ACCOUNTS
INTEREST EARNED-MORGAN STANLEY
INTEREST-MORGAN STANLEY- CONT
INTEREST EARNED-LAIF
INTEREST EARNED-U.S. TREASURY BONDS
INTEREST US TREASURY BOND
INTEREST EARNED-COUNTY OF ORANGE
INTEREST EARNED-ACWA
INTEREST EARNED - RAYMOND JAMES
TAXES-SECURED
TAXES-UNSECURED
TAXES SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL
TAXES PRIOR YEARS
TAXES HOMEOWNER'S SUBVENTION
TAXES PUBLIC UTILITY
TAXES TUSTIN RDA
TAXES MISC
TAXES ACCRUED
STATE TAXES CONFISCATED
PROCEEDS IN-LIEU TAXES
RENT INCOME- AT&T
RENT INCOME- CROWN CASTLE
AMP SALE INSTALLMENTS
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
Total NON OPERATING INCOME:
40
41
4,900,985
2,961
50
16,136
228,000
57,000
212,050
222,000
135,085
8,377
25,000
5,807,645
(1,968,933)
(1,520)
(5)
(13,836)
(73,714)
(18,887)
(66,590)
(73,990)
(44,367)
(0)
(31,314)
11,789
(2,281,367)
59.83%
48.66%
90.00%
14.25%
67.67%
66.87%
68.60%
66.67%
67.16%
100.00%
‐25.25%
0.00%
2,572
2,713
263
4,490
3,731
50
13,817
2,120
11,696
330,899
18,884
10,222
4,968
2,220
5,532
28,058
35,844
64,848
142
410
515,844
3,409
16,732
585,000
15,000
5,000
15,000
4,000
10,000
40,000
55,000
51,000
20,000
500
820,641
(1,289)
(5,035)
(254,101)
3,884
5,222
(10,032)
(1,780)
(4,468)
(11,942)
(19,156)
13,848
(19,858)
(90)
(304,797)
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
62.20%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
69.90%
56.56%
125.90%
204.44%
33.12%
55.51%
55.32%
70.15%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
65.17%
127.15%
0.71%
81.97%
Total OPERATING REVENUE
255,821
4,042,122
6,628,285
(2,586,164)
NET OPERATING INCOME:
255,821
4,042,122
6,628,285
(2,586,164)
Page 4
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
FOR WHOLESALE
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
YTD
ACTUAL
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
EXPENSES
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
EOCF #2 NONINTERR OC 43
EOCF #2 NONINTERR OC 48
WATER PURCHASED AMP
WATER PURCHASED
WATER PURCHASED IN-LIEU
WATER PURCHASED-IN LIEU CREDIT
AMP_FAP LEASE EXPENSE
MET-MWDOC CHOICE BUDGET
MET-MWDOC READINESS TO SERVE
MET-MWDOC CAPACITY FEES
MWDOC RETAIL SERVICE CONNECT
UTILITY- SCADA RTU
SMALL TOOLS
GASOLINE, OIL & DIESEL FUEL
REGULATORY PERMITS
NPDS PERMIT
PROF SERV WATER QUAL. CONTROL
SCADA REPLACEMENTS / UPGRADES
OPERATIONS REPORTING SOFTWARE
METER PURCHASE/REPAIR
PRESSURE REGULATORS R&M
R/M- MAINS
DAMAGE REPAIR- CAL EMA
SERVICE CONNECTIONS R&M
RESERVOIRS R&M
R/M- VAULTS
R/M- CATHODIC PROTECTION
MAINTAIN & OPERATE EOCF#2
METER TESTING
SAC LINE R&M
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE-BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
WAGES
PAYROLL TAXES- FICA & MEDICARE
RETIREMENT- PERS
PAYROLL TAXES- SUI & ETT
HEALTH & ACCIDENT INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VISION INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE
UNIFORMS
11,821
155,610
1,250
17,155
14,896
18,183
132
338
184
309
540
320
16
291
110
1,417
16,889
1,260
254
706
15,265
1,252
1,906
135
2,436
222
47
18
404
92
625,108
842,295
1,463,443
10,000
11,475
142,900
90,718
145,460
1,273
2,265
2,524
3,665
8,761
93
3,585
826
515
1,591
4,337
20,435
521
1,232
11,333
262
16,889
13,904
348
1,782
1,413
149,953
12,057
16,573
828
24,772
2,136
439
205
3,249
780
1,473,786
979,199
2,447,999
8,377
222,000
135,085
212,050
2,600
3,500
5,413
5,000
25,000
9,198
19,845
15,000
5,000
25,000
1,500
20,000
10,000
20,500
50,000
3,000
10,000
11,150
3,571
2,723
3,750
212,633
17,737
36,048
804
63,478
4,687
1,205
893
7,589
2,232
(848,678)
(136,905)
(984,555)
10,000
3,098
(79,100)
(44,367)
(66,590)
(1,327)
(1,235)
(2,889)
(1,335)
(16,239)
(9,105)
(16,260)
(14,174)
(4,485)
(23,409)
2,837
435
(9,479)
(19,268)
(38,667)
(2,738)
6,889
2,754
(3,223)
(941)
(2,337)
(62,680)
(5,680)
(19,476)
24
(38,706)
(2,551)
(766)
(688)
(4,340)
(1,452)
42.42%
86.02%
59.78%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
64.37%
67.16%
68.60%
48.95%
64.72%
46.63%
73.30%
0.00%
35.05%
1.01%
18.07%
5.51%
10.30%
6.36%
0.00%
289.10%
102.17%
5.21%
6.01%
22.67%
8.72%
168.89%
124.70%
42.81%
65.45%
37.69%
70.52%
67.98%
45.97%
103.00%
39.02%
45.58%
36.41%
22.99%
42.81%
34.97%
Page 5
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
FOR WHOLESALE
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
DESCRIPTION
DISTRICT WEBSITE
MCPHERSON FAX
MCPHERSON INTERNET
MCPHERSON OFFICE PHONES
ANSWERING SERVICE
PHONE CIRCUITS TO CTRL EQUIP
CELLPHONES
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
TRAINING/SCHOOLS
CONSERVATION EDUCATION
TRAVEL- CONF/SEMINARS
MILEAGE
DUES & MEMBERSHIP- ACWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS- OCWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS- AWWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIP- FCA
DUES & MEMBERSHIP- CSDA
DUES- ISDOC/URBAN WTR
MISCELLANEOUS EXP
DIRECTOR- R. BARRETT
DIRECTOR- W. VANDERWERFF
DIRECTOR- D. CHAPMAN
DIRECTOR- J. DULEBOHN
DIRECTOR- R. BELL
DIRECTOR- D. DAVERT
DIRECTOR- W. EVERETT
BOARD MEETING EXPENSE
POSTAGE
OFFICE SUPPLY/FURN/SMALL EQUIP
PUBLICATIONS & LEGAL NOTICES
COPIER CONTRACT
BANK CHARGES
OUTSIDE SERVICES
AUDITING
TAX COLLECTION FEES
TREASURER
ACCOUNTING- SERRANO
LEGAL
COMPUTER CONSULTING
ENGINEERING-WS
LAFCO
INSURANCE-AUTO & GEN LIABILITY
INSURANCE-PROPERTY
INSURANCE-EMP. FIDELITY BOND
OFFICE EQUIPMENT R&M
UTILITIES-DUMPSTER
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
40
66
262
29
386
134
20
420
54
100
463
213
150
88
115
16
208
49
25
163
2,599
7
487.50
3,219
2,158
3,900
797
231
18
38
25
YTD
ACTUAL
248
455
1,810
127
2,664
1,153
215
969
3,299
522
2,350
25
1,501
350
288
4,288
1,163
1,725
700
665
220
1,527
409
194
1,308
5,985
4,424
916
1,205
18,668
41,196
1,835
13,778
5,683
6,621
1,846
146
564
203
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
2,250
300
2,000
2,300
250
4,851
2,000
425
6,732
15,000
9,500
402
3,750
75
400
20
3,500
1,100
500
6,000
3,600
3,600
3,600
3,000
3,400
7,000
5,000
625
3,000
5,000
8,200
6,000
7,000
25,000
50,000
2,500
40,000
12,000
3,750
371
300
1,000
BUDGET $
PERCENT
OVER
OF BUDGET
(UNDER)
EXPENDED
(2,250)
0.00%
(52)
82.83%
(1,545)
22.74%
(490)
78.70%
(123)
50.73%
(2,187)
54.93%
(847)
57.63%
(210)
50.65%
(5,763)
14.39%
(15,000)
0.00%
(6,201)
34.73%
120
129.83%
(1,400)
62.66%
(50)
33.33%
(400)
0.00%
(20)
0.00%
(1,999)
42.89%
(750)
31.82%
57.70%
(212)
0.00%
(1,713)
71.46%
0.00%
(2,438)
32.29%
(1,875)
47.92%
0.00%
(2,900)
19.44%
(2,335)
22.17%
(3,180)
6.47%
(5,473)
21.81%
(4,591)
8.19%
(431)
31.02%
(1,692)
43.60%
985
119.69%
(3,776)
53.95%
(5,084)
15.27%
(5,795)
17.21%
(6,332)
74.67%
(8,804)
82.39%
(665)
73.40%
13,778
0.00%
(34,317)
14.21%
(5,379)
55.18%
(1,904)
49.23%
(225)
39.33%
264
188.11%
(797)
20.30%
Page 6
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
FOR WHOLESALE
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
DESCRIPTION
UTILITIES- THE GAS CO.- OFFICE
UTILITIES- OFFICE- ELECT & WTR
SECURITY
ELECTION EXPENSE
DEPRECIATION EXP.
TRANS. TO WRCI-CAPITAL PROJECT
TRANS TO CAPITAL PROJECTS
TRANSFER TO (FROM) RESERVES
MARKET VALUE ADJUST-INVESTMENT
MARKET VALUE ADJUST-INVESTMENT
MARKET VALUE ADJUST-INVESTMENT
Total EXPENSES:
144 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS:
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
246
2,729
19,286
(1,872)
300,328
YTD
ACTUAL
2,321
197
26,449
21,835
154,286
7,239
3,983,517
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
3,375
1,500
64,000
32,753
187,638
6,622,119
BUDGET $
PERCENT
OVER
OF BUDGET
(UNDER)
EXPENDED
0.00%
(1,054)
68.78%
(1,303)
13.14%
(37,551)
41.33%
0.00%
0.00%
(10,918)
66.67%
(33,352)
82.23%
0.00%
7,239
0.00%
0.00%
(2,638,603)
(44,507)
58,605
6,166
52,439
-
-
(6,167)
(6,167)
6,167
6,167
(44,507)
58,605
(0)
46,272
145 OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSE
146 PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
147 Total OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSE
148 NET INCOME (LOSS)
0.00%
0.00%
Page 7
WHOLESALE ZONE CAPITAL PROJECTS
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
2014-2015 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
1
FUNDS PROVIDED BY RESERVE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CAPITAL PROJECTS REVENUE
INTEREST EARNINGS
INTEREST RECEIVABLE- AMP SALE
REIMBURSEMENT FROM IRWD
REIMBURSEMENT FOR STORM DAMAGE REPAIRS
REIMBURSEMENT FOR SECURITY UPGRADES
TRANSFER FROM OPERATING EXPENSES
9
NET OPERATING INCOME
EXPENSES
DESCRIPTION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENSES
CAPITALIZED ACCOUNTING COSTS
SECURITY GATE AT 6 MG SITE-CONST
SECURITY SYSTEM AT PETERS CANYON RESERVOIR
BACKUP GENERATOR AT OC70 PUMP STATION
PIPELINE INSPECTIONS-ENGINEERING
MASTER PLAN/CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FEASABILITY ENVIRONMENTAL
6 MG RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIRS
6 MG RESERVOIR - LANDSCAPE/V-DITCH
CATHODIC PROTECTION - PIPELINES
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVEMENTS
11.5 MG RESERVOIR CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM
USED VEHICLE TO SUPPLEMENT FLEET
6 MG TREATMENT PLANT
SECURITY UPGRADES-ANDRES RESERVOIR
VALVE REPLACEMENTS (12" - 27")
REPLACE BACKHOE
NEWPORT RESERVOIR MIXING SYSTEM
ISOLATION VALVES - 11.5 & 1 MG RESERVOIRS - ENGINEERING
FINANCIAL SOFTWARE
OC33 RECONNECTION
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-OC-70 TURNOUT & PUMP STATION
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-PETER'S CANYON RESERVOIR
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-OC-48 MET TURNOUT
UWMP UPDATE
36
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
37 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS
38 PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
39 NET INCOME (LOSS)
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
REVENUE
YTD
ACTUAL
REVENUE
-
-
2,729
3,904
21,835
2,729
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
65,098
-
25,739
YTD
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
74,375
569
10,971
2,069
40,150
8,230
-
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
-
15,000
13,000
200,000
225,000
453,000
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
-
(11,096)
(13,000)
(200,000)
(203,165)
5,000
11,000
20,000
81,000
26,000
125,000
1,320,000
36,000
31,000
13,000
36,000
15,000
305,000
15,000
23,000
25,000
31,000
41,000
25,000
45,000
12,000
70,000
3,000
30,000
(5,000)
(11,000)
(20,000)
(81,000)
(26,000)
(50,625)
569
(1,309,029)
(36,000)
(31,000)
(13,000)
(36,000)
(15,000)
(302,931)
(15,000)
(23,000)
15,150
(31,000)
(41,000)
(16,770)
(45,000)
(12,000)
(70,000)
(3,000)
(30,000)
65,098
136,364
2,344,000
(2,207,636)
(110,624)
(1,891,000)
1,780,376
(62,369)
(110,624)
(1,891,000)
0.00%
26.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.70%
(427,261)
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
(62,369)
-
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
59.50%
0.00%
0.83%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.68%
0.00%
0.00%
160.60%
0.00%
0.00%
32.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1,780,376
Page 8
FOR WHOLESALE
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
YTD
ACTUAL
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
REVENUE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FUNDED BY RESERVES
INTEREST- RAYMOND JAMES
INTEREST-MORGAN STANLEY-CAP
INTEREST-LAIF-CAP
INTEREST-US TREASURY BOND
INTEREST INCOME-AMP SALE
REIMBURSEMENT FROM IRWD
REIMBURSEMENT- STORM DAMAGE
REIMBURSEMENT-SECURITY UPGRADE
TRANSFER FROM WZ OPERATIONS
Total NON OPERATING INCOME:
2,729
2,729
3,904
21,835
25,739
15,000
13,000
200,000
225,000
453,000
(11,096)
(13,000)
(200,000)
(203,165)
(427,260)
11 Total OPERATING REVENUE
2,729
25,739
453,000
(427,260)
12 NET OPERATING INCOME:
2,729
25,739
453,000
(427,260)
65,098
65,098
74,375
569
10,971
2,069
40,150
8,230
136,364
5,000
10,000
1,000
15,000
5,000
80,000
1,000
25,000
1,000
125,000
1,150,000
150,000
20,000
30,000
5,000
1,000
25,000
5,000
1,000
10,000
3,000
25,000
10,000
1,000
15,000
275,000
5,000
25,000
9,000
5,000
1,000
12,000
5,000
6,000
25,000
5,000
25,000
1,000
5,000
30,000
6,000
25,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
12,000
70,000
3,000
5,000
25,000
2,344,000
(5,000)
(10,000)
(1,000)
(15,000)
(5,000)
(80,000)
(1,000)
(25,000)
(1,000)
(50,625)
569
(1,150,000)
(139,029)
(20,000)
(30,000)
(5,000)
(1,000)
(25,000)
(5,000)
(1,000)
(10,000)
(3,000)
(25,000)
(10,000)
(1,000)
(15,000)
(272,931)
(5,000)
(25,000)
(9,000)
(5,000)
(1,000)
(12,000)
(5,000)
(6,000)
15,150
(5,000)
(25,000)
(1,000)
(5,000)
(30,000)
(6,000)
(16,770)
(25,000)
(10,000)
(10,000)
(12,000)
(70,000)
(3,000)
(5,000)
(25,000)
(2,207,636)
(62,369)
(110,624)
(1,891,000)
1,780,376
EXPENSES
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
CAPITALIZED ACCOUNTING COSTS
SECURITY GATE AT 6 MG SITE-CONST (WZ PORTION)
SECURITY GATE AT 6 MG SITE-LABOR (WZ PORTION)
SECURITY SYSTEM AT PETERS CANYON RESERVOIR-CONSTRUCTION
SECURITY SYSTEM AT PETERS CANYON RESERVOIR-LABOR
BACKUP GENERATOR AT OC70 PUMP STATION-CONST
BACKUP GENERATOR AT OC70 PUMP STATION-LABOR
PIPELINE INSPECTIONS-ENGINEERING (CARRYOVER)
PIPELINE INSPECTIONS-LABOR
MASTER PLAN/CONDITION ASSESSMENT
FEASABILITY AND ENVIRONMENT
6 MG RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIRS-CONSTRUCTION
6 MG RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIRS-ENGINEERING
6 MG RESERVOIR ROOF REPAIRS-LABOR
6 MG RESERVOIR - LANDSCAPE/V-DITCH-CONSTRUCTION
6 MG RESERVOIR - LANDSCAPE/V-DITCH-ENGINEERING
6 MG RESERVOIR - LANDSCAPE/V-DITCH-LABOR
CATHODIC PROTECTION - PIPELINES-CONSTRUCTION
CATHODIC PROTECTION - PIPELINES-ENGINEERING
CATHODIC PROTECTION - PIPELINES-LABOR
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVEMENTS-CONSTRUCTION
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVEMENTS-LABOR
11.5 MG RESERVOIR CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM-CONSTRUCTION
11.5 MG RESERVOIR CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM-ENGINEERING
11.5 MG RESERVOIR CATHODIC PROTECTION SYSTEM-LABOR
VEHICLE TO SUPPLEMENT FLEET
6 MG TREATMENT PLANT FEASIBILITY STUDY-ENGINEERING
6 MG TREATMENT PLANT -LABOR
6 MG TREATMENT PLANT - ENGINEERING
SECURITY - ANDRES RESERVOIR-CONSTRUCTION
SECURITY -ANDRES RESERVOIR-ENGINEERING
SECURITY -ANDRES RESERVOIR-LABOR
VALVE REPLACEMENTS (12" - 27")-CONSTRUCTION
VALVE REPLACEMENTS (12" - 27")-ENGINEERING
VALVE REPLACEMENTS (12" - 27")-LABOR
REPLACE BACKHOE
NEWPORT RESERVOIR MIXING SYSTEM - ENGINEERING
NEWPORT RESERVOIR MIXING SYSTEM - CONTSTRUCTION
NEWPORT RESERVOIR MIXING SYSTEM - LABOR
ISOLATION VALVES - 11.5 & 1 MG RESERVOIRS - ENGINEERING
ISOLATION VALVES - 11.5 & 1 MG - CONSTRUCTION
ISOLATION VALVES - 11.5 & 1 MG - LABOR
FINANCIAL SOFTWARE
CONTSTRUCTION- OC33 RECONNECTION
ENGINEERING - OC 33 RECONNECTION
LABOR - OC33 RECONNECTION
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-OC-70 TURNOUT & PUMP STATION-CONSTRUCTION
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-PETER'S CANYON RESERVOIR-CONSTRUCTION
VULNERABILITY UPGRADES-OC-48 MET TURNOUT-CONSTRUCTION
UWMP UPDATE-LABOR (WS PORTION)
UWMP UPDATE-ENGINEERING (WS PORTION)
Total EXPENSES:
65 NET INCOME (LOSS)
0.00%
0.00%
26.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.70%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
59.50%
0.00%
0.00%
7.31%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.75%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
160.60%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
32.92%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
Page 9
Retail Zone Financial Summary
For Period Ending February 28, 2015
YTD Operating Income
$
1,153,953
YTD Operating Expense
Revenue vs Expenses
$
992,718
Water Purchased Budget vs. Actual
400,000
60,000
350,000
50,000
300,000
40,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
Revenue
30,000
Expense
20,000
100,000
Budget
Expense
10,000
50,000
-
-
Salaries & Benefits Budget vs. Actual
CIP Budget vs. Actual
60,000
140,000
50,000
120,000
100,000
40,000
80,000
30,000
Budget
Expense
20,000
10,000
-
Electrical Budget vs. Actual
O&M Budget vs. Actual
16,000
180,000
14,000
160,000
12,000
140,000
100,000
Budget
80,000
Budget
Expense
60,000
Expense
4,000
40,000
2,000
20,000
-
O&M O
120,000
10,000
6,000
Expense
40,000
20,000
-
8,000
Budget
60,000
(20,000)
RETAIL ZONE
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
2014-2015 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
1
2
3
4
5
OPERATING REVENUE:
WATER SALES
METER CHARGE
OTHER CHARGES
TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE:
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
REVENUE
YTD
ACTUAL
REVENUE
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
115,690
59,656
(45)
689,171
238,910
8,639
1,102,160
360,000
8,625
(412,989)
(121,090)
14
62.53%
66.36%
100.16%
175,301
936,720
1,470,785
(534,065)
63.69%
56.93%
167.86%
764.26%
0.00%
0.00%
6
7
8
9
10
11
NON-OPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES):
PROPERTY TAXES
INTEREST & INVESTMENT EARNINGS
MISCELLENOUS INCOME
MARKET VALUE ADJUSTMENT ON INVESTMENTS
DISPOSAL OF ASSET GAIN (LOSS)
1,694
3
-
211,876
1,536
3,821
-
372,200
915
500
-
(160,324)
621
3,321
-
12
TOTAL NON-OPERATING REVENUES, NET
1,697
217,233
373,615
(156,382)
13
NET OPERATING INCOME
176,998
1,153,953
1,844,400
(690,447)
DESCRIPTION
EXPENSES
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OPERATING EXPENSE:
SOURCE OF SUPPLY
MET/MWDOC FIXED CHARGE
WZ FIXED CHARGE
PIPELINE CAPACITY LEASE
ENERGY
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
GENERAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENSE
RETAIL OPERATIONS CONTINGENCY FUND
FUNDED TO/BY RESERVE
DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION
26
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
27 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS
28 PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
29 NET INCOME (LOSS)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
YTD
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
15,610
1,057
1,385
3,799
8,251
35,245
14,095
13,713
6,250
4,167
-
201,396
8,459
11,082
28,342
82,376
359,310
108,719
109,700
50,000
33,333
-
531,704
12,500
15,660
45,500
118,500
607,711
223,275
164,550
75,000
50,000
-
(330,308)
(4,041)
(4,578)
(17,158)
(36,124)
(248,401)
(114,556)
(54,850)
(25,000)
(16,667)
-
103,572
992,718
1,844,400
(851,682)
73,426
161,235
73,426
161,235
-
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
37.88%
67.67%
70.77%
62.29%
69.52%
59.13%
48.69%
66.67%
66.67%
66.67%
0.00%
161,235
161,235
Page 2
Retail Zone
February 2015 Variance Report - 66% of Budget Year Expended
Account Name
Income(I)
Expense (E)
YTD Amount
Percent
Received/
Spent
Comments
Operating
New
LATE CHARGE
INTEREST INCOME-MM
I
I
18.15
121.00%
YTD is high due to receiving more interest than expected
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
PAYROLL TAXES- SUI & ETT
MCPHERSON OFFICE PHONES
E
E
E
10,803.92
930.22
1,809.97
96.90%
93.35%
78.69%
YTD is high due to unplanned generator rental
YTD is high due to timing of tax payments
YTD is high due to underbudgeting the account
Ongoing
LATE CHARGE
INTEREST-LAIF-OP
TAXES UNSECURED
TAXES SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
I
I
I
I
I
8,469
1,518
10,719
5,818
3,821
74.29%
168.64%
82.46%
264.47%
764.26%
YTD is high due to revenue being higher than expected
YTD is high due to receiving more interest than expected
YTD is high due to more revenue than expected in this account
YTD is high due to more revenue than expected in this account
YTD is high due to an ACWA insurance refund and reimbursement for an auto
accident
OCWD- REPLENISH ASSESSMENT
REGULATORY PERMITS
STOLLER RESERVOIR/BOOSTER R&M
R&M VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR
CHLORINE GENERATOR
R/M- MAINS
SERVICE LATERALS R&M
METER TESTING
BANK CHARGES
MCPHERSON FAX
MILEAGE
POSTAGE
COMPUTER BILLING (RZ BILLS)
OFFICE EQUIPMENT R&M
UTILITIES- OFFICE- ELECT & WTR
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
200,709
4,347
5,838
6,160
3,729
24,290
12,047
1,838
5,135
414
517
3,296
4,747
564
2,792
92.49%
79.04%
97.30%
116.23%
124.28%
105.61%
60.24%
183.83%
109.25%
137.90%
103.78%
96.94%
67.82%
141.09%
82.74%
YTD is high due to more pumping than purchased water
YTD is high due to unanticipated SWRCB Fees
YTD is high due to the purchase of measurement control systems
YTD is high due to work performed by Hidden Valley Pumps
YTD is high due to unanticipated expenses
YTD is high due to unexpected main leaks
YTD is high due to work performed by Hardy & Harper
YTD is high due to unanticipated expenses
YTD is high due to credit card fees being higher than anticipated
YTD is high due to fees being higher than anticipated
YTD is high due to more expenses than expected
YTD is high due to more expenses than expected
YTD is high due to yearly CUSI fees
YTD is high due to unanticipated expenses
YTD is high due to fees being higher than anticipated
E
40,150
8,469
74.29% Late Charges are negative in the current month due to refunds given
Capital
New
Ongoing
REPLACE BACKHOE-CONSTRUCTION
160.60%
YTD is high due to expenses being higher than anticipated
Page 3
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
DESCRIPTION
REVENUE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
WATER SALES
METER CHARGE
LATE CHARGE
RETURNED CHECK CHARGE
TURN OFF CHARGE
OTHER CHARGES
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
TURN ON NEW SERVICE
REFUNDS
SERVICE UPGRADE FEE
Total OPERATING REVENUE:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
INTEREST INCOME-MM
INTEREST-MORGAN STANLEY-OP
INTEREST-LAIF-OP
INTEREST- US TREASURY BOND
INTEREST INCOME-CTY OF ORANGE
TAXES SECURED
TAXES UNSECURED
TAXES SUPPLEMENTAL ROLL
TAXES PRIOR YEARS
TAXES HOMEOWNER'S SUBVENTION
TAXES PUBLIC UTILITY
TAXES TUSTIN RDA
TAXES MISC
TAXES ACCRUED
STATE TAXES CONFISCATED
PROCEEDS IN-LIEU TAXES
MISCELLANEOUS INCOME
Total NON OPERATING INCOME:
30
31
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
1,102,160
360,000
11,400
950
1,400
(5,125)
1,470,785
(412,989)
(121,090)
(2,931)
(830)
(1,350)
5,125
(534,065)
62.53%
66.36%
74.29%
12.63%
3.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3
1,544
150
1,697
18
1,518
188,351
10,719
5,818
2,834
1,264
2,889
3,821
217,233
15
900
326,000
13,000
2,200
8,000
3,000
5,000
20,000
(5,000)
500
373,615
3
618
(137,649)
(2,281)
3,618
(5,166)
(1,736)
(2,111)
(20,000)
5,000
3,321
(156,382)
121.00%
0.00%
168.64%
0.00%
0.00%
57.78%
82.46%
264.47%
35.43%
42.13%
57.78%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
764.26%
Total OPERATING REVENUE
176,998
1,153,953
1,844,400
(690,447)
NET OPERATING INCOME:
176,998
1,153,953
1,844,400
(690,447)
25
687
200,709
20,589
7,754
8,459
2,216
8,866
37,105
2,942
42,328
2,304
3,873
4,347
6,364
669
263
519
314,704
217,000
30,500
15,000
12,500
3,300
12,360
53,100
7,500
57,900
3,500
6,712
5,500
20,000
1,400
3,250
3,250
(314,017)
(16,291)
(9,911)
(7,246)
(4,041)
(1,084)
(3,494)
(15,995)
(4,558)
(15,572)
(1,196)
(2,839)
(1,153)
(13,636)
(731)
(2,987)
(2,731)
WATER PURCHASED
WATER PURCHASED IN-LIEU
WATER PURCHASED IN LIEU CREDIT
OCWD- REPLENISH ASSESSMENT
MET-MWDOC READINESS TO SERVE
MET-MWDOC CAPACITY FEES
MWDOC RETAIL SERVICE CONNECT
EOCWD WR READINESS TO SERVE
EOCWD WR RESERVE FUND CHARGE
UTILITY STOLLER RESERVOIR
UTILITY VISTA PANORAMA BOOSTER
ULITILITIES- WELLS- EAST/WEST
SMALL TOOLS
GASOLINE, OIL & DIES-RZ
GASOLINE, OIL & DIESEL FUEL
REGULATORY PERMITS
NPDS PERMIT
PROF SERV WATER QUAL. CONTROL
CHLORINE GENERATOR/SALT PURCH
WEST WELL MAINTENANCE
EAST WELL MAINTENANCE
115,690
59,656
(45)
175,301
YTD
ACTUAL
689,171
238,910
8,469
120
50
936,720
EXPENSES
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
FOR RETAIL
15,585
2,455
1,343
1,057
277
1,108
4,150
249
3,852
338
358
277
233
314
-
0.22%
0.00%
0.00%
92.49%
67.50%
51.69%
67.67%
67.17%
71.73%
69.88%
39.23%
73.11%
65.83%
0.00%
57.71%
79.04%
0.00%
31.82%
47.77%
8.09%
15.96%
Page 4
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
DESCRIPTION
STOLLER RESERVOIR/BOOSTER R&M
VISTA PANORAMA BOOSTER R&M
R&M VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR
CHLORINE GENERATOR
SCADA REPAIR/UPGRADE
OPERATIONS REPORTING SOFTWARE
HYDRANT REPAIR & REPLACEMENTS
METER PURCHASE REPAIR
PRV- R & M
R/M- MAINS
DAMAGE REPAIR- CAL EMA
SERVICE LATERALS R&M
RESERVOIRS R&M
R/M- VAULTS
R/M- CATHODIC PROTECTION
METER TESTING
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
BACKHOE R&M
VEHICLES R&M
BUILDING/GROUNDS R&M
WAGES
PAYROLL TAXES- FICA & MEDICARE
RETIREMENT- PERS
PAYROLL TAXES- SUI & ETT
HEALTH & ACCIDENT INSURANCE
DENTAL INSURANCE
VISION INSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE
WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE
UNIFORMS
DISTRICT WEBSITE
MCPHERSON FAX
MCPHERSON INTERNET
MCPHERSON OFFICE PHONES
ANSWERING SERVICE
PHONE CIRCUITS TO CTRL EQUIP
CELLPHONES
UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT
TRAINING/SCHOOLS
CONSERVATION EDUCATION
TRAVEL-CONF/SEMINARS
MILEAGE
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS- ACWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS- OCWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIPS- AWWA
DUES & MEMBERSHIP- FCA
DUES & MEMBERSHIP-CSDA
DUES- ISDOC/URBAN WTR
MISCELLANEOUS EXP
DIRECTOR- R. BARRETT
DIRECTOR- W. VANDERWERFF
DIRECTOR- D. CHAPMAN
DIRECTOR- J. DULEBOHN
DIRECTOR- R. BELL
DIRECTOR- D. DAVERT
DIRECTOR- W. EVERETT
BOARD MEETING EXPENSE
POSTAGE
OFFICE SUPPLY/FURN/SMALL EQUIP
PUBLICATIONS & LEGAL NOTICES
COPIER CONTRACT
FOR RETAIL
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
82
300
709
1,099
556
108
2,818
293
26
17,564
1,430
2,184
152
5,224
431
92
36
504
117
40
66
262
29
227
134
20
558
420
54
100
463
213
150
88
115
579
208
49
25
YTD
ACTUAL
5,838
45
6,160
3,729
81
5,224
3,747
6,234
297
24,290
12,047
419
382
1,838
10,804
475
2,333
454
173,483
13,876
18,982
930
39,758
3,253
678
308
4,095
1,211
414
455
1,810
127
1,560
987
215
1,062
2,685
3,299
517
2,350
25
1,911
350
108
4,288
1,163
1,725
700
650
3,296
1,562
688
194
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
6,000
4,200
5,300
3,000
5,402
11,655
16,100
9,200
2,050
23,000
20,000
2,000
1,500
5,000
1,000
11,150
4,429
3,377
3,750
263,696
21,997
39,981
996
78,722
5,813
1,495
1,107
9,411
2,768
2,250
300
4,000
2,300
250
2,849
2,000
425
6,268
4,000
9,500
498
3,750
75
400
20
3,500
1,100
500
6,000
3,600
3,600
3,600
2,000
3,400
6,750
7,550
625
BUDGET $
PERCENT
OVER
OF BUDGET
(UNDER)
EXPENDED
(162)
97.30%
(4,155)
1.08%
860
116.23%
729
124.28%
(5,321)
1.50%
(6,431)
44.82%
(12,353)
23.27%
(2,966)
67.76%
(1,753)
14.49%
1,290
105.61%
0.00%
(7,953)
60.24%
(1,581)
20.94%
(1,118)
43.51%
(5,000)
0.00%
838
183.83%
(346)
96.90%
(3,954)
10.72%
(1,044)
69.08%
(3,296)
12.10%
(90,212)
65.79%
(8,121)
63.08%
(20,999)
47.48%
(66)
93.35%
(38,964)
50.50%
(2,559)
55.97%
(817)
45.34%
(799)
27.81%
(5,316)
43.51%
(1,557)
43.74%
(2,250)
0.00%
114
137.90%
(3,545)
11.37%
(490)
78.69%
(123)
50.73%
(1,289)
54.76%
(1,013)
49.37%
(210)
50.65%
(5,206)
16.95%
(1,315)
67.13%
(6,201)
34.73%
19
103.78%
(1,400)
62.67%
(50)
33.33%
(400)
0.00%
(20)
0.00%
(1,589)
54.59%
(750)
31.82%
(392)
21.65%
0.00%
(1,713)
71.46%
0.00%
(2,438)
32.29%
(1,875)
47.92%
0.00%
(2,900)
19.44%
(1,350)
32.51%
(104)
96.94%
(5,188)
23.15%
(6,862)
9.12%
(431)
31.02%
Page 5
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
DESCRIPTION
VERSATERM CONTRACT (RZ BILLS)
BANK CHARGES
OUTSIDE SERVICES
AUDITING
TAX COLLECTION FEES
COMPUTER BILLING (RZ BILLS)
TREASURER
ACCOUNTING- SERRANO
LEGAL
COMPUTER CONSULTING
ENGINEERING-RZ
LAFCO
INSURANCE-AUTO & GEN LIABILITY
INSURANCE-PROPERTY
INSURANCE-EMP. FIDELITY BOND
OFFICE EQUIPMENT R&M
UTILITIES-DUMPSTER
UTILITIES- THE GAS CO.- OFFICE
UTILITIES- OFFICE- ELECT & WTR
SECURITY
ELECTION EXPENSE
INTEREST EXPENSE DWR
DISPOSAL OF ASSET GAIN (LOSS)
DEPRECIATION EXP.
PRIOR YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
TRANS TO CAPITAL PROJECT AF
TRANS TO CAPITAL PROJECTS
RZ- CONTINGENCY FUND
FUNDED TO/BY RESERVE-RZ
MARKET VALUE ADJUST-INVESTMENT
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
145
NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS:
146
147
148
PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
PRIOR YEARS INCOME (EXPENSES)
Total OTHER INCOME AND EXPENSES
149
NET INCOME (LOSS)
FOR RETAIL
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
895
2,329
4
402
488
3,219
1,330
675
554
77
16
38
25
246
13,713
6,250
4,167
103,572
YTD
ACTUAL
550
5,135
4,900
4,076
518
4,747
1,205
18,668
12,154
1,695
5,623
2,398
4,601
615
129
564
203
2,792
197
5,806
109,700
50,000
33,333
992,718
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
3,750
4,700
6,000
8,200
5,000
7,000
7,000
25,000
35,000
2,500
4,590
7,750
3,000
400
400
1,000
3,375
1,500
16,000
164,550
75,000
50,000
1,844,400
73,426
161,235
0
73,426
161,235
-
BUDGET $
PERCENT
OVER
OF BUDGET
(UNDER)
EXPENDED
(3,200)
14.67%
435
109.25%
(1,100)
81.67%
(4,124)
49.71%
(4,482)
10.35%
(2,253)
67.82%
(5,795)
17.21%
(6,332)
74.67%
(22,846)
34.73%
(805)
67.80%
5,623
0.00%
(2,192)
52.25%
(3,149)
59.37%
(2,385)
20.51%
(271)
32.36%
164
141.09%
(797)
20.30%
0.00%
(583)
82.74%
(1,303)
13.14%
(10,194)
36.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
(54,850)
66.67%
(25,000)
66.67%
(16,667)
66.67%
0.00%
(851,682)
161,235
-
0
0.00%
0.00%
161,235
Page 6
RETAIL ZONE CAPITAL PROJECTS
EAST ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
2013-2014 STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
REVENUE
1
FUNDS PROVIDED BY RESERVE
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CAPITAL PROJECTS REVENUE
CAPITAL PROJECTS FEES
CONNECTION FEES
INTEREST EARNINGS
TRANSFER FROM OPERATING EXPENSES
FUNDS BORROWED FROM WHOLESALE ZONE
REIMBURSEMENT- RZ BILL RATE STUDY
47,639
13,713
-
9
NET OPERATING INCOME
61,351
DESCRIPTION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
32
EXPENSES
-
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
YTD
ACTUAL
REVENUE
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
313,750
(313,750)
0.00%
190,768
7,135
174
109,700
-
277,000
10,450
500
164,550
-
(86,232)
(3,315)
(326)
(54,850)
-
68.87%
68.27%
34.71%
66.67%
0.00%
0.00%
307,777
766,250
(458,474)
-
YTD
ACTUAL
EXPENSES
ANNUAL
2014-15
BUDGET
BUDGET $
OVER
(UNDER)
CAPITAL PROJECTS EXPENSES
RZ CAPITALIZED ACCOUNTING COST
BETTERMENT & REPLACEMENT PLAN
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVEMENT
CATHODIC PROTECTIONS
USED VEHICLE TO SUPPLEMENT FLEET
VP VAULT PIPING/METER UPGRADE
VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR REPAIR
VP PUMP REBUILD
VALVE RAISING-CRAWFORD CANYON
VALVE REPLACEMENTS- SYSTEM
ALLOW FOR SYSTEM RELOCATION
BACKUP GENERATOR FOR VP BOOSTER
REPLACE BACKHOE
FINANCIAL SOFTWARE
BACKUP SYSTEM PRV - CIRCULA PANORAMA
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS - RESERVOIR SITES
JOINT WELL - ENGINEERING
WELL DISINFECTION CONVERSION
WEST WELL REHABILIATION -REPLACEMENT
SIDEHILL BOOSTER
SCADA SYSTEMS SITE ADDITIONS - VP SIDEHILL AND RZ FIRE PUMP
27,911
-
40,721
40,150
8,023
19,602
-
5,000
81,000
15,000
5,500
15,000
27,000
120,000
5,250
18,000
20,000
110,000
50,000
25,000
25,000
50,000
15,000
30,000
57,500
72,000
20,000
(5,000)
(40,279)
(15,000)
(5,500)
(15,000)
(27,000)
(120,000)
(5,250)
(18,000)
(20,000)
(110,000)
(50,000)
15,150
(16,977)
(50,000)
(15,000)
(30,000)
(57,500)
(72,000)
19,602
(20,000)
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE
27,911
108,496
766,250
(657,754)
33,441
199,280
33 NET INCOME FROM OPERATIONS
34 PRIOR YEARS EXPENSES
35 NET INCOME (LOSS)
33,441
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
199,280
-
PERCENT
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
0.00%
50.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
160.60%
32.09%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
199,280
199,280
Page 7
FOR RETAIL
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
DESCRIPTION
REVENUE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
FUNDED BY RESERVES
WATER SALES-CAPITAL PROJECTS
CONNECTION FEES
INTEREST INCOME- CHAPMAN AVE
INTEREST-MORGAN STANLEY-CAP
INTEREST-LAIF-CAP
INTEREST US TREASURY BOND
REIMBURSEMENT- RZ BILL RATE STUDY
TRANSFER IN CAPITAL PROJECTS
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
YTD
ACTUAL
ANNUAL
BUDGET $
PERCENT
2014-15
BUDGET
OVER
(UNDER)
OF BUDGET
EXPENDED
47,639
13,713
190,768
7,135
174
109,700
313,750
277,000
10,450
500
164,550
(313,750)
(86,232)
(3,315)
(326)
(54,850)
10 Total NON OPERATING INCOME:
61,351
307,777
766,250
(458,474)
11 Total OPERATING REVENUE
61,351
307,777
766,250
(458,474)
12 NET OPERATING INCOME:
61,351
307,777
766,250
(458,474)
27,911
-
40,721
-
5,000
10,000
70,000
1,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
500
15,000
20,000
5,000
2,000
100,000
15,000
5,000
5,000
250
17,000
500
500
15,000
5,000
100,000
5,000
5,000
50,000
(5,000)
(10,000)
(29,279)
(1,000)
(10,000)
(5,000)
(5,000)
(500)
(15,000)
(20,000)
(5,000)
(2,000)
(100,000)
(15,000)
(5,000)
(5,000)
(250)
(17,000)
(500)
(500)
(15,000)
(5,000)
(100,000)
(5,000)
(5,000)
(50,000)
EXPENSES
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
RZ CAPITALIZED ACCOUNTING COST
BETTERMENT & REPLACEMENT PLAN
BETTERMENT & REPLACEMENT PLAN
BETTERMENT & REPLACEMENT PLAN
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVE-CONST.
MCPHERSON OFFICE/YARD IMPROVE-LABOR
CATHODIC PROTECTIONS-CONST.
CATHODIC PROTECTION-LABOR
USED VEHICLE TO SUPPLEMENT FLEET
VP VAULT PIPING/METER UPGRADE-CONST.
VP VAULT PIPING/METER UPGRADE-ENG.
VP VAULT PIPING/METER UPGRADE-LABOR
VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR REPAIR-CONST.
VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR REPAIR-ENG.
VISTA PANORAMA RESERVOIR REPAIR-LABOR
VP PUMP REBUILD-CONST.
VP PUMP REBUILD-LABOR
VALVE RAISING-CRAWFORD CANYON-CONST.
VALVE RAISING-CRAWFORD CANYON-ENG.
VALVE RAISING-CRAWFORD CANYON-LABOR
VALVE REPLACEMENTS- SYSTEM CONST.
VALVE REPLACEMENTS- SYSTEM LABOR
ALLOW FOR SYSTEM RELOCATION-CONST.
ALLOW FOR SYSTEM RELOCATION-ENG.
ALLOW FOR SYSTEM RELOCATION-LABOR
BACKUP GENERATOR FOR VP BOOSTER-CONST.
Page 8
68.87%
68.27%
0.00%
0.00%
34.71%
0.00%
0.00%
66.67%
0.00%
0.00%
58.17%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
FOR RETAIL
MONTH: FEBRUARY 2015
ANNUAL
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
DESCRIPTION
REPLACE BACKHOE-CONSTRUCTION
FINANCIAL SOFTWARE
BACKUP SYSTEM PRV - CIRCULA PANORAMA-CONSTRUCTION
BACKUP SYSTEM PRV - CIRCULA PANORAMA-ENGINEERING
BACKUP SYSTEM PRV - CIRCULA PANORAMA-LABOR
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS - RESERVOIR SITES-CONSTRUCTION
SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS - RESERVOIR SITES-LABOR
JOINT WELL - ENGINEERING
JOINT WELL - LABOR
WELL DISINFECTION CONVERSION -CONST/EQUIP
WELL DISINFECTION CONVERSION-ENGINEERING
WELL DISINFECTION CONVERSION - LABOR
WEST WELL REHABILIATION -REPLACEMENT-CONSTRUCTION
WEST WELL REHABILITATION -REPLACEMENT-LABOR
SIDEHILL BOOSTER-CONSTRUCTION
SIDEHILL BOOSTER-LABOR
SCADA SYSTEMS SITE ADDITIONS - VP SIDEHILL AND RZ FIRE PUMP
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES:
57 Net Income (Loss):
MONTHLY
ACTUAL
27,911
YTD
ACTUAL
40,150
8,023
18,562
1,040
108,496
33,441
199,280
2014-15
BUDGET
25,000
25,000
30,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
5,000
25,000
5,000
45,000
10,000
2,500
70,000
2,000
20,000
766,250
-
BUDGET $
PERCENT
OVER
OF BUDGET
(UNDER)
EXPENDED
15,150
160.60%
(16,977)
32.09%
(30,000)
0.00%
(10,000)
0.00%
(10,000)
0.00%
(10,000)
0.00%
(5,000)
0.00%
(25,000)
0.00%
(5,000)
0.00%
(45,000)
0.00%
(10,000)
0.00%
(2,500)
0.00%
(70,000)
0.00%
(2,000)
0.00%
18,562
0.00%
1,040
0.00%
(20,000)
0.00%
(657,754)
199,280
Page 9
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: FY 2015-2017 AUDIT SERVICES – AWARD OF CONTRACT
DATE:
APRIL 2, 2015
BACKGROUND
For the past nine years the firm of Charles Z. Fedak & Company (CZF) has provided
independent auditor services to the District; most recently their contract was renewed in 2013. While
we have been pleased with CZF’s performance, good financial controls dictate that it is prudent to
change firms periodically. Accordingly, a Request for Proposal was developed and proposals were
solicited from four pre-qualified CPA firms that have audited water and wastewater special districts.
The RFP was reviewed with the Finance Committee and proposals solicited from four firms:
•
•
•
•
Meyer Hoffman McCann
Lance, Soll & Lunghard
The Pun Group
White Nelson Diehl Evans, LLP
Irvine, CA
Brea, CA
Santa Ana, CA
Irvine, CA
Proposals were received from two of the four firms; Meyer Hoffman McCann and Lance Soll &
Lunghard did not respond.
The proposals were evaluated pursuant to the attached evaluation form. Five specific evaluation
criteria were established and weighted as follows (Note, cost was not considered until after the
technical evaluation was completed:
Weight
1. Completeness of response
15%
2. Firm & Team Qualifications/Experience with like-sized water agencies
20%
3. Approach to Work
15%
4. Quality of References
20%
5. Cost
30%
Based upon the proposal analysis, The Pun Group submitted the most responsive proposal
(achieving a score of 97 out of 100). While theirs was not the lowest cost proposal, upon evaluation
the cost differences were minimal for two reasons: 1) Meyer Hoffman McCann didn’t include the cost
of attending a Board Meeting to present the audit, and 2) The Pun Group included a cyber-security
component that would review and test our financial IT security environment (valued at ~$750.00).
The Finance Committee reviewed this issue at their April 2nd Meeting and recommend that the
Board approve the contract with The Pun Group.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommend that the Board approve a contract with The Pun Group for the
Fiscal Years 2015-2017 at a cost of $37,500 ($12,500 per fiscal year).
FY 2015-2017 Audit Services
Proposal Evaluation Form
Proposals were evaluated based upon the evaluation criteria as stated below. The cost proposal was not considered until after the
qualifications points were awarded.
Points
Rating
9-10
8-7
6-5
4-3
2-1
0
Excellent response
Insightful response
More than adequate response
Adequate response, no special insights
Inadequate response
No response given
Factor
Weight
Response was complete and met RFP requirements
Professional qualifications of firm & team &
experience with like sized water agencies
Approach to work/Value added Items
Quality of references
Cost
15%
20%
15%
20%
30%
White
Nelson
Diehl
Evans
LLP
Evaluation
Criteria
The Pun
Group
R
W
R
W
1. Completeness of Response
9
13
10
15
2. Firm & Team Qualifications/
Experience with like-sized water agencies
10
20
10
20
3. Approach to Work/Value Added Items
8
12
10
15
4. Quality of References
10
20
10
20
5. Cost
10
30
9
27
TOTAL SCORE
R = Rating
95
97
W = Rating with Weighted Factor Applied
2015
2016
2017
Total
3-Year
Cost
White Nelson
$12,000
$12,000
$12,245
$36,245
2
The Pun Group
$12,500
$12,500
$12,500
$37,500
1
Firm Name
Ranking
East Orange County
Water District
Orange, California
Proposal to Provide
Professional Audit Services
For the Fiscal Years Ending
June 30, 2015 through June 30, 2017
March 30, 2015
PROPOSAL
Kenneth H. Pun, CPA, CGMA
Managing Partner
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
Phone: (949) 777-8801
Fax: (949) 925-8850
Email: ken.pun@pungroup.com
California CPA License Number: PAR 7601
Federal Identification Number: 46-4016990 East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Transmittal Letter ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Section I – Independence ................................................................................................................................... 3
Section II – License to Practice in California ...................................................................................................... 3
Section III – Firm Qualifications and Experience
About The Pun Group, LLP .................................................................................................................... 4
Staff Consistency .................................................................................................................................... 4
Experience. Principles. Knowledge. Commitment. Capacity. Diversity.................................................. 5
Most Recent External Quality Control Review ....................................................................................... 6
Federal or State Desk Review ................................................................................................................ 7
Disciplinary Action .................................................................................................................................. 7
Section IV –Partner, Supervisory and Staff Qualification and Experience ......................................................... 8
Section V – Similar Engagements with other Government Entities ................................................................. 19
Section VI – Specific Audit Approach ............................................................................................................... 20
Section VII – Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems ................................................................ 25
Section VIII – Bidding Proposal ........................................................................................................................ 27
Benefits of Choosing The Pun Group, LLP ....................................................................................................... 29
Thank you .......................................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendix:
Proof of Insurance ............................................................................................................................................. 33
This page intentionally left blank.
March 30, 2015
East Orange County Water District
Ms. Lisa Ohlund, General Manager
185 N. McPherson Road
Orange, CA 92869
Dear Ms. McCullough:
Please allow us to introduce our firm and share our qualifications and proposed audit plan for the East Orange
County Water District (the “District”) pursuant to your Request for Proposals to Provide Professional Audit Services
for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2015 through June 30, 2017. The Pun Group, LLP, formerly known as Pun &
McGeady LLP (the “Firm”), due to consolidation, has the knowledge and experience necessary to become the
District’s next public accounting firm, and the work plan to ensure a smooth audit process.
This letter is an acknowledgement of the Firm’s understanding of the work to be performed. We hereby offer our
commitment to perform all of the required work, complete the audit and, issue the necessary auditor’s
report, and within the time periods outlined by the District. We are secure in affirming our commitment
because we have:
1. A lengthy legacy of serving California governmental special districts and municipalities;
2. Prodigious experience serving governmental and not-for-profit entities; and
3. An efficient, lower-cost approach to auditing that focuses on high-risk areas.
I will serve as your primary contact for contract negotiations. I am a partner of the Firm and have been authorized to
legally bind the Firm. My contact information follows:
Name:
Position:
Address:
Telephone:
Email:
Mr. Kenneth H. Pun, CPA, CGMA
Managing Partner
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
(949) 777-8801
ken.pun@pungroup.com
You may also contact the following partner, who is authorized to represent the Firm:
Name:
Position:
Address:
Telephone:
Email:
Mr. Paul J. Kaymark, CPA
Audit Partner
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
(949) 777-8821
paul.kaymark@pungroup.com
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600, Santa Ana, California 92707
Tel: 949-777-8800 •Toll Free: 855-276-4272 • Fax: 949-777-8850
www.pungroup.com
East Orange County Water District
Ms. Lisa Ohlund, General Manager
Page 2
The Pun Group is the right choice for East Orange County Water District because we are focused on your industry.




We have audited and consulted many California special districts.
We have assisted many clients in earning the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial
Reporting.
The depth of resources and specific government experience are substantial, we are committed to deploy
these resources and experience to the District. Simply put, the District will remain one of our most
important clients, and receive the priority service you deserve.
We are committed to performing all of the work outlined in the District’s Request for Proposal within the
time periods established by the District, in accordance with the District’s contract terms.
Our goal for this audit is to complete the process in accordance with regulations while minimizing disruption to the
District’s daily operations. The Firm will:




Develop solid familiarity with the District’s operations.
Create a detailed audit plan during initial stages of the audit.
Maintain open communication lines between the Engagement Team and the District’s Management.
Assign duties to qualified staff members.
This method ensures that the audit process will be performed steadily, communicated clearly, and completed
efficiently. Detail explanation of the Specific Audit Approach can be found on pages 19 to 23, under this proposal.
Our Orange County office, located at 200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600 Santa Ana, California 92707 will
perform the requested services for the District. However, we may assign additional staff from our San Diego,
Walnut Creek, or La Quinta, California offices to the engagement, at no additional cost to the District. No
subcontractors will be used.
The Firm is an Equal Opportunity Employer and complies with all Federal and State hiring requirements.
This proposal meets the requirements of the District’s Request for Proposal. This letter and the accompanying
proposal represent a firm and irrevocable offer valid until June 30, 2018.
If you have any questions about the proposal or the Firm, please contact us. We look forward to speaking with you.
Sincerely,
The Pun Group, LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors
Kenneth H. Pun, CPA, CGMA
Managing Partner
2
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section I – Independence
The Pun Group, LLP (the “Firm”) requires all employees to adhere to strict independence standards in relation to
the Firm’s clients. These independence standards exceed, in many instances, the standards promulgated by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
The Pun Group, LLP certifies that it is independent of East Orange County Water District (the “District”). The Firm
meets independence requirements defined by the United States Government Accountability Office’s (U.S. GAO’s)
Government Auditing Standards, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA).
The Firm had no professional relationships involving the District for the past five (5) years.
Section II – License to Practice in California
The Firm and all key professional staff are licensed by the State of California to practice as Certified Public
Accountants, and meet the Continuing Professional Education requirements under U.S. GAO’s Government
Auditing Standards to perform the proposed audits.
3
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section III – Firm Qualifications and Experience
About The Pun Group, LLP
The Pun Group, LLP, formerly known as Pun & McGeady LLP, Certified Public Accountants and Business
Advisors, founded in 2012, is a limited liability partnership. The full-service accounting firm comprises thirty (30)
professionals on full-time basis who provide auditing, accounting, and advisory services. Of the thirty (30)
professionals, twenty (20) of them focus in the Government Assurance Practice. The Firm has offices in Orange
County, San Diego, La Quinta, and Walnut Creek, California.
The Firm has served hundreds of governmental agencies since 1989, under the umbrella of its predecessor
firm, Caporicci & Larson, where all key personnel assigned provided outstanding services to governmental
entities throughout California.
The combination of hands-on experience and practical knowledge of our audit professionals makes the Firm
unique in the field. Our technical knowledge and thorough understanding of current regulations and issues—along
with the Firm’s commitment to hard work, integrity, and teamwork on every engagement—enable us to help our
clients flourish.
Our Governmental Partners Group—which includes partners Kenneth H. Pun, Paul J. Kaymark, Gary M.
Caporicci and Jack F. Georger—has provided auditing, accounting, and advisory services to numerous
governmental entities throughout the United States. Our more than one hundred-twenty (120) years of combined
experience in the government industry have made us a trusted business partner with our clients, and we have
become well-respected as one of the most socially responsible accounting firms.
In addition to annual financial audits, team members undertake special studies in financial management,
accounting, cost-accounting-system analysis, internal audit services, and internal control documentation and
testing. By participating in industry associations and activities, we are always up to date on the latest industry
changes and the impact they will have on your operations. We will keep you and our colleagues in the Firm, fully
informed of these developments.
Our team is committed to bringing the full breadth and depth of our expertise to the audit of the District at an
outstanding value to you.
While many accounting firms can perform an audit, not all can build a great working relationship with their clients.
The Pun Group, LLP develops lasting, personal relationships with clients. Our hands-on partner involvement and
low personnel turnover will make you appreciate our firm more every day we work together.
Staff Consistency
The Firm is committed to maintaining staff continuity throughout audit engagements. While we cannot guarantee
that our staff members will stay with the Firm, we encourage loyalty by paying competitive wages, offering
opportunities for promotion, using state-of-the-art equipment, and providing excellent working conditions. We also
offer benefits including retirement plans, medical plans, profit-sharing programs, and continuing education. The
Firm is an equal-opportunity employer and complies with all federal and state hiring requirements. The Firm also
supports affirmative-action philosophies and works hard to provide opportunities for self-enhancement to
members of disadvantaged groups.
We guarantee that the partners assigned to this audit will be involved throughout the entire engagement term,
and that assigned staff members will return to the District in future years if they are still with the firm. One of our
primary audit concerns is staff continuity, and our hands-on partner involvement ensures that qualified and
experienced professionals will perform audits efficiently and effectively every year of the engagement.
4
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
EXPERIENCE. PRINCIPLES. KNOWLEDGE.
AT THE PUN GROUP, LLP WE
WORK TOGETHER WITH OUR
COMMITMENT. CAPACITY. DIVERSITY
CLIENTS TO ADDRESS A
VARIETY OF CHALLENGES
LIKE:

Reporting and Compliance
Requirements

Risk and Internal Controls

Operational Transformation

Technology Consulting
We understand our clients have broad and complex needs. That’s the number one
reason our solutions are developed to specifically address these unique needs. This is
why we have such a high retention rate. Some of our clients have been with us for over
a decade.
The following is the most current list of our Assurance Clients:
GFOA CERTIFICATE OF
Cities and Towns:
Health Centers:
ACHIEVEMENT FOR

City of Arcadia

Alliance Medical Center
EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL

City of Arvin

Anderson Valley Health Center, Inc.
REPORTING:

City of Bradbury

Fallbrook Healthcare District

City of Calexico

Family Health Centers of San Diego

City of Cerritos

Marin City Health and Wellness Center

City of Clovis

McCloud Healthcare District

City of Desert Hot Springs

Redwood Coast Medical Services

City of Encinitas

Ritter Center

City of Gardena

Shingletown Medical Center

City of Hermosa Beach

Tulare Community Health Clinic

City of Lakewood

United Health Centers of San Joaquin Valley
100% of our clients that have
submitted their reports to the
GFOA have received the
Certificate of Excellence.
UNP AR ALLE LED P ARTNE RS
SUPPORT:

City of Monterey Park
Hands-on partner involvement

City of National City
Special Districts/Others:
always available to address our

City of Placerville

Las Virgenes Municipal Water District

City of Poway

Marina Coast Water District

City of Ridgecrest

Newport Coast Elementary Foundation

City of Stockton

Orange County Business Council

Town of Andrews

Palmdale Water District
OUR SERVICES INCLUDE:

Town of Danville

Shanghai Jiao Tong University Foundation of
 Financial statement audits
Transportation Authorities/Agencies:
 Performance audits

Southwestern Community College District

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Valley Sanitary District
Authority

Orange County – City Hazardous Material
client’s needs and answer
questions.
America
 Single audit (OMB Circular A
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
 Employee benefit plan audits
Emergency Response Authority

SunLine Transit Agency
West Valley Water District


133)
Internal controls evaluations


Shasta Regional Transportation Agency 
Ventura County Transportation
Commission
5
Palmdale Water District
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Most Recent External Quality Control Review
The Firm participates in the AICPA Peer Review Program, which is designed to identify weaknesses in
accounting-service policies, practices, and procedures.
In 2013, an independent reviewer assessed the Firm’s quality-control policies, reviewed administrative records,
interviewed professional personnel, and inspected the Firm’s working papers and reports from a representative
sample of accounting and auditing engagements, including governmental audits. The reviewer concluded that the
Firm fully complies with the AICPA’s stringent standards for quality control.
A quality-control reviewer considers, among other things, a firm’s policies regarding hiring, training, supervision,
delegation of responsibilities, and access to technical resources.
The reviewer determined that the Firm’s accounting and auditing work and internal quality-control system meet
the AICPA’s guidelines for professional standards.
The Firm’s participation
in the Peer Review
Program demonstrates
our commitment to
quality. We also affirm
our
dedication
to
excellent client service
through our voluntary
memberships in the
AICPA—including the
AICPA’s Governmental
Audit Quality Center—
and CalCPA.
6
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Federal or State Desk Review
No federal or state desk reviews or field reviews have been undertaken of any audits performed by the Firm or
any of its partners, managers, or professionals during the past three (3) years.
Disciplinary Action
No disciplinary action has been taken by state regulatory bodies or professional organizations against the Firm or
any of its partners, managers, or professionals during the past three (3) years.
The Firm has no conditions such as bankruptcy, pending litigations, planned office closures, mergers or any
organizational conflict of interest that may affect the ability of the Firm to perform the required duties requested by
the East Orange County Water District.
7
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section IV – Engagement Partner, Manager/Supervisory and Staff
Qualification and Experience
The Engagement Team is carefully chosen to provide the District with all services needed to successfully
complete the audit. The Engagement and Concurring Partners are personally involved in the audit, and the
Engagement Team has significant experience in governmental auditing. Our broad experience and technical
capabilities allow us to provide technical support, interpret findings, and offer effective solutions to any issues.
East Orange County Water District
Engagement Partner
Concurring Partner
GASB 68/71 Specialist
Paul J. Kaymark, CPA
Kenneth H. Pun
CPA, CGMA
Gary M. Caporicci
CPA, CGFM, CFF
Engagement Manager
Compliance Manager
Frances Kuo
CPA, CGMA
Cyber Security Expert
Melissa Ochoa, CPA
John K. Aurelius
Supervisor
David Siris
CPA
Professional Staff
Deana Ilagan
The personnel assigned to this engagement are fully qualified to perform an effective and efficient audit of the
District, and their extensive experience will be invaluable to the audit process. Our professionals are familiar with
the complexities of governmental accounting, auditing, and financial reporting, including but not limited to, all
GASB pronouncements, the Single Audit Act, OMB Circular A-133, and fund operations.
If the Firm changes key personnel for reasons other than those specified in the Proposal, we will provide the
District with written notification and will only be changed with the express prior written permission of the District.
Other audit personnel may be changed with replacement that has substantially the same or better qualifications or
experience.
8
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Paul J. Kaymark, CPA
Engagement Partner
Paul is an assurance partner with the Government and Not-for Profit Practice of the Firm who has over twentyyears of public accounting experience. He specializes in auditing special district governments and not-for-profit
organizations. Paul will directly oversee the Engagement Team, and he will be responsible for the delivery of all
services to East Orange County Water District. In addition, he will manage engagement planning and fieldwork,
and he will review and approve the work papers and reports.
Kenneth H. Pun, CPA, CGMA
Concurring Partner
Ken is an assurance partner and the Partner In-Charge of Government and Not-for Profit Practice at the Firm who
has over fifteen years of public accounting experience. He specializes in audits and management consulting for
government organizations. Ken will act as the Concurring partner.
Gary M. Caporicci, CPA, CGFM, CFF
GASB 68/71 Specialist
As an assurance partner with over forty years of experience, Gary has provided financial and compliance audit
and consultation services to governmental clients including cities, counties, transportation agencies, and school
districts, as well as various not-for-profit entities. He provides advice and consultation regarding complex
accounting matters, assists engagement teams in audit matters. Gary will be responsible in providing advice and
consultation for the implementation of these new pension standards.
Melissa Ochoa, CPA
Engagement Manager
Melissa will work closely with Paul Kaymark and Gary Caporicci, directing the audit team in its daily activities. She
is an assurance services/audit manager and has extensive experience auditing local government entities
including special districts, cities, counties, not-for-profit and healthcare entities.
Frances Kuo, CPA, CGMA
Compliance Manager
Working with Melissa, Frances will direct the audit team in compliance-related matters. She is an assurance
services/audit manager in the Firm whose extensive auditing experience includes special districts, cities, counties,
transportation agencies, and not-for-profit entities.
John K. Aurelius
Cyber Security Expert
With more than 30 years experience, John has experience leading IT department, performing IT audits and
business process improvement reviews, providing compliance management services, and developing and
implementing scalable, business-valued, cost-efficient solutions that effectively leverage information technology.
John will be responsible for the planning, testing, documentation and review of the IT environment in support of
the financial audit. John will report to the audit partner.
David Siris, CPA
Supervisor
David will direct the audit staff, coordinate with East Orange County Water District personnel, and implement the
audit approach.
Deana Ilagan
Professional Staff
Deana is qualified to perform financial and compliance audits of special district and other governmental agencies.
This ensures that the staff quality will be consistent throughout the engagement term. Because we support both
staff development and engagement continuity, we encourage senior and staff accountants to take increased
responsibilities on their previous engagements as they advance professionally.
9
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Quality-Control System
The quality of our practice is extremely important to the Firm, as well as to our
clients and the people who rely on our reports. We are meticulous about
meeting professional standards, and we are careful to form professional
relationships only with individuals who have strong integrity.
Our quality-control system, which is designed to meet our own elevated
standards and those of the AICPA, includes the following professionaldevelopment activities:
Professional Development
Each Engagement Team member is up-to-date with continuing professional education requirements. The
Firm encourages staff members to participate in the continuing education programs offered by the AICPA and
the CalCPA Education Foundation. These classes include, among others:







Basic Concepts of Governmental Accounting, Financial Reporting and Auditing
Government Auditing Standards
GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update
Governmental Accounting and Auditing: The Annual Update
Auditing Standards: A Comprehensive Review
In addition, the Firm provides comprehensive in-house training for all levels of staff. The program includes
seminars developed by the Firm, educational programs developed by the AICPA and CalCPA, and on-the-job
training.
Every year, all professional and administrative staff members receive an annual overview and review of topics
such as these:









Principles of accounting and financial reporting for state and local governments
Governmental fund types
Newly issued U.S. generally accepted auditing standards and government auditing standards
Internal control evaluation approaches, including COSO Internal Control Framework
Updates on recent governmental accounting and reporting guidelines and pronouncements
Single Audit requirements and approaches
Risk based audit approaches
Working paper techniques
Current issues facing the governmental community
These ongoing continuing education activities and training programs ensure the Engagement Team is highly
educated, well prepared, and fully able to perform an efficient and effective audit of the District.
Engagement Team Resumes
East Orange County Water District deserves experienced professionals who work as a team. The Pun Group,
LLP will provide qualified employees to perform the audit; no subcontractors will be used. Resumes for key
Engagement Team members follow.
10
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Paul J. Kaymark, CPA*
Engagement Partner
Paul J. Kaymark is an Audit Partner with the Governmental and Not-for-Profit
Practice of The Pun Group, LLP. Prior to joining our firm, Mr. Kaymark spent
over twenty-years with KPMG, McGladrey and CZFCPA in these firms’
governmental and not-for-profit audit services practice.
Mr. Kaymark has also provided significant other services to various
governmental and not-for-profit entities. In these engagements, he has been
involved in the strategic planning processes, design and implementation of
policies and procedures manuals and operational and organizational reviews of
accounting departments. He has also been involved in the implementation of
performance management budgeting and planning processes, financial reviews,
trend analysis, cash management practices and utility rate setting.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
EDUCATION
BS Degree in Business
Administration, emphasis in
Accountancy from Cal State
University Long Beach
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
paul.kaymark@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California





Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
Member, Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)
GFOA Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting – Reviewer
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE























Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
San Diego County Water Authority
Imperial Irrigation District
Los Angeles County Sanitation District
City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power
County of Los Angeles
City of Glendale Water & Power
City of Long Beach
City of Pasadena
City of South Pasadena
City of Santa Monica
Mojave Water Agency
Casitas Municipal Water District
Hi-Soledad-Mission Water District
North Marin Water District
Palmdale Water District
Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District
West Valley Water District
Big Bear City Community Services District
Stallion Springs Community Services District
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Various Airport, Cemetery, Fire and Park & Recreation Special Districts
Various Not-For-Profit organizations throughout California
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
 Various municipal accounting courses offered by the CalCPA Education
Foundation including:
o Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update o Government Auditing Standards
o GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
o Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies.
11
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Kenneth H. Pun, CPA*, CGMA
Concurring Partner
Kenneth H. Pun is the Partner In-Charge of the Governmental and Not-for-Profit
Practice and the Founder of The Pun Group, LLP. Prior to founding his own
practice, Mr. Pun spent over twelve years with Caporicci & Larson, a specialty
CPA firm recognized as one of California’s foremost experts in governmental
and not-for-profit accounting, auditing, and advisory services.
Ken has more than fifteen years of public-accounting experience and has
achieved with a high level of expertise from successfully working with the
governmental, private, and not-for-profit sectors. Clients often engage Ken
because he provides premier service, commits to completing projects quickly
and accurately, and introduces innovative methods of increasing operational
efficiencies and reducing costs. Mr. Pun is a trusted advisor and a leader of
accounting services to governmental and not-for-profit organizations.
EDUCATION
BS Degree in Business Administration,
emphasis in Accounting from the
University of California, Riverside
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
Litigation Support
1655 North Main Street, Suite 355
Walnut Creek, California 94596
ken.pun@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California
In addition to working with clients, Ken provides the audit teams with direction
and technical guidance to ensure adherence to the Firm’s quality controls, and
he assists with the development of the Assurance Services practice. Ken also
speaks publicly on topics related to audits and quality control and shares his
expertise with clients through annual educational seminars.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
 Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
 Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
 Member, CalCPA Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee
 Member, Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
 Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)
 Speaker, CSMFO Conference (2014)
 GFOA Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting – Reviewer
 Speaker, California Education Foundation Long Beach and Orange County
Chapter Fall Series 2014
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE















City of Arcadia
City of Calexico
City of Cerritos
City of Chula Vista
City of Clovis
City of Soledad-Mission Hot Springs
City of Fairfield
City of Gardena
City of Placerville
City of Poway
City of Stockton
North County Transit District
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
San Diego Association of Governments
Town of Danville
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
 Various municipal accounting courses offered by the CalCPA Education
Foundation and local universities including:
o Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update
o Government Auditing Standards
o GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
o Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies.
12
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Gary M. Caporicci, CPA*, CGFM, CFF
GASB 68/71 Specialist
Gary M. Caporicci has more than forty years of diversified business experience,
including a specialization in audit and management consulting for government
organizations. Gary’s clients include public and private universities and colleges,
city and county governments, state agencies, joint power authorities, healthcare
agencies, transportation agencies, and special Districts. Known for his expertise
in the areas of construction and government, Gary wrote the AICPA audit guides
on these topics, and he has authored many audit and accounting courses for
professional groups, as well as academic institutions. He frequently speaks and
lectures at many professional organizations, governmental seminars, and
conferences held by industry associations, other accounting firms, and
universities. In addition, he authors white papers for the California Committee on
Municipal Accounting.
EDUCATION
BS Degree in
Accounting and Finance from the
Armstrong University
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
Litigation Support
Prior to working with the Firm, Gary founded his own accounting practice. He
also spent eleven years with a “Big Eight” professional services firm, where he
was an Audit Manager and gained broad experience in a wide range of
industries such as government, construction, manufacturing, mutual funds, and
insurance. Prior to that, Gary held a consultant position with a “Big Four”
practice and was Vice President of a national insurance and financial services
company.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
 Member and Instructor, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants
(AICPA)
 Member, Author and Instructor, California Society of Certified Public
Accountants (CalCPA)
 Past Chair, CalCPA Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee
 Chair and Speaker, CalCPA Governmental Accounting and Auditing State
Conferences
 Member, CalCPA Council
 Chair, California Committee on Municipal Accounting (CCMA)
 Member, Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
 Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)
 Member, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB),
 Member, Deposit and Investment Risks Disclosure Task Force (GASB No. 40)
 National Reviewer and Speaker, Government Finance Officers Association
 Adjunct Professor, National University
 Past Member, Texas Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee
 GFOA Certificate for Excellence in Financial Reporting – Reviewer
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
 Author and instructor of various municipal accounting courses offered by
CalCPA Education Foundation and local universities including:
o Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update
o Government Auditing Standards
o GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
o Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies
gary.caporicci@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California
13
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Melissa Ochoa, CPA*
Engagement Manager
Melissa Ochoa is a Manager in The Pun Group, LLP’s Assurance division. Melissa
has over fifteen years of accounting and auditing experience working with
governmental agencies, not-for-profit entities, and private for profit entities. Melissa
also has particular expertise in conducting financial audits under GAO Yellow Book
standards and compliance audits in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
Melissa has performed audits and other attestation services for several governmental
agencies throughout California including: special districts, airports, financing
authorities, water, sewer, flood and sanitation districts. She has assisted these clients
with publishing their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports in compliance with
GASB Statement No. 34.
Melissa develops training materials and shares her expertise internally with other Firm
professionals. Melissa is a frequent speaker at in-house seminars on topics related to
government auditing standards and Single audits.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
EDUCATION
BA Degree in Business
Administration, Emphasis in
Accounting, from California State
University, Fullerton
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
melissa.ochoa@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California




Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
Member, Member of Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE

Castaic Lake Water Agency

Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

North Marin Water District

El Toro Water District

East Orange County Water District

Trabuco Canyon Water District

Hi-Soledad-Mission Water District

Casitas Municipal Water District

Soquel Creek Water District

Santa Maria Airport District

Gold Coast Transit

Oxnard Harbor District

Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District

Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District

West Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District

Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund

Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach

Laguna Beach Seniors

Irvine Chamber of Commerce

Quality Drug Holdings Corporation

Oschin Family Foundation

Compilations and Reviews of several private entities
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

Various municipal accounting courses offered by the AICPA, CalCPA
Education Foundation and local universities including:
o
Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update
o
Government Auditing Standards
o
GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
o
Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
o
Financial Accounting Standards Board Annual Updates
o
Statement on Standards for Accounting and Review Services Updates

Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies.
14
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Frances Kuo, CPA*, CGMA
Compliance Manager
Frances Kuo is a Manager in The Pun Group, LLP’s Assurance division.
Frances has over ten years of accounting and auditing experience working with
governmental agencies, not-for-profit entities, and employee benefit plans.
Frances also has particular expertise in conducting financial audits under GAO
Yellow Book standards and compliance audits in accordance with OMB Circular
A-133.
Frances has performed audits and other attestation services for several
municipalities throughout California including cities, counties, redevelopment
agencies, public financing authorities, housing authorities, transportation
agencies, and special Districts. She has assisted these clients with publishing
their Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports in compliance with GASB
Statement No. 34.
EDUCATION
Frances is the in-house instructor who provides training, both theoretical and onthe-job training, to lower level staff. She has developed training materials on the
risk based audit approach, GASB Statement No. 34 reporting, Single Audits, and
employee benefit plan audits.
BS Degree in Business
Administration, Emphasis in
Accounting, from
University of California, Riverside
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
BA Degree in Economics from
University of California, Riverside
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
 Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
 Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
 Member, California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO)

















City of Arcadia
City of Bradbury
City of Cerritos
City of Soledad-Mission Hot Springs
City of Gardena
City of Monterey Park
City of Ridgecrest
Conejo Recreation and Park District
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Marina Coast Water District
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
San Diego Transit Corporation Retirement Plan
Tulare Community Health Clinic
San Diego Metropolitan Transit System
San Diego Association of Governments
Southwestern Community College District
Valley Sanitary District
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
frances.kuo@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California and Virginia
 Various municipal accounting courses offered by the AICPA, CalCPA Education
Foundation and local universities including:
o
o
o
o
Governmental and Nonprofit Annual Update
Government Auditing Standards
GASB Basic Financial Statements for State and Local Governments
Single Audits: OMB Circular A-133
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies.
15
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
John Aurelius
Cyber Security Expert
John Aurelius is the Contracted Technology Specialist. He is a well-rounded
information and technology professional experienced in analysis, design, development
and management in high technology manufacturing, hardware and software
companies. His broad base of experience provides him the ability to understand
projects and create solutions from both general and specific perspectives. He is able
to manage internal projects as well as develop and manage new customer
relationships. He is also a developer who has experience in a wide range of
programming languages and environments.
E X P E R I E N C E H IG H L IG H S
Placer County Sheriff’s Office (Law Enforcement)
Volunteer Service for the past 15 years
SAR Communications Unit Leader (Search and Rescue)
Designed and supervised the construction of the Mobile Command Center
encompassing video and encrypted data satellite systems with secure access to CAD
with DMV, criminal history, NCIC and other services. Combined with GIS and two
dispatch positions, the 14 radios communicate with local, county, state and federal
government radio systems.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Technology
Engineering
Application Development
Data Processing
Programmer Analyst
MCS Education Services (Financial Services)
Chief Technology Officer
Led a team of computer system developers and operators who were creating
applications to support financial reporting requirements for over 70% of California’s
school districts.
Aurand (Product Development Contract Services)
Founder and CEO – Director of Development
Developed hardware and software systems for Voice Mail, Information on Demand,
Fax on Demand, Satellite ground station control, International Callback, Web
Services, Near Field Communications, Debit and Credit Card Processing, Medical
Systems, Financial , Insurance and Payment Systems.
Alta Research (Systems Integration)
Vice President of Engineering
Responsible for hardware and software design and development
telecommunications systems for Voice Mail, and Interactive Voice Response.
of
NEC Electronic Arrays (Semiconductor Manufacturing)
Management Information Systems Manager
Interfaced with department level and executive management to lead a transition from
centralized data processing to user managed distributed processing with central
controls. Developed financial management systems to complement the production
management systems
Data Processing Section Head
Responsible for total company computer operations staff including development,
programming, training, documentation and data entry.
Programmer Analyst
Responsible for development and implementation of production and inventory
management software in a semiconductor manufacturing environment. Led conversion
from outside services to in-house systems
IOMEC (Computer Peripheral Manufacturing)
Systems Supervisor
Responsible for computer operations, user education and continuing development of
production and inventory management systems using company produced computer
products.
jaurelius@528media.com
Production Control Analyst
Responsible for analysis of inventory and production requirements of electronic and
mechanical components used in computer manufacturing.
Programmer Analyst
Responsible for development and implementation of inventory and production
management software. Developed Material Requirements Planning (MRP) software
under the direction of the Director of Materials.
16
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
David Siris, CPA*
Supervisor
David Siris is a Supervisor for The Pun Group, LLP. He has more the seven (7)
years of governmental experience that ranges from GASB audit/reporting,
Internal Controls/COSO Framework, and Single Audit.
David has been involved in providing significant services to various government
entities and actively contributed and participated in the planning process,
implementation of the audit work plan, supervision of staff, compliance testing for
the Single Audit, and preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Reports and other various reports.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
 Member, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
 Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
EDUCATION
BS Degree in Finance from Cal
State University Fullerton
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews
Federal Compliance
Litigation Support
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
















City of Arcadia
California Municipal Finance Authority
City of Cerritos
City of Gardena
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Lawndale
City of Loma Linda
City of Lomita
City of Redding
City of San Clemente
City of San Gabriel
City of Santa Barbara
County of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Clarita
City of Stockton
United Health Centers of San Joaquin Valley
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
 Various municipal accounting courses offered by the California Society of CPAs
and local universities including:
o
o
o
o
Governmental Financial Reporting Standards and Practices
Yellow Book: Government Auditing Standards
Municipal Accounting
Single Audit
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies.
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
david.siris@pungroup.com
*Licensed by the State of California
17
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Deana Ilagan
Professional Staff
Deana Ilagan is a Professional Staff for The Pun Group, LLP. She has more
than six (6) years of public-accounting experience with governmental, private,
and not-for-profit sectors. Governmental experience ranges from GASB
audit/reporting and Internal Controls/COSO Framework.
In various engagements, Deana has been involved in providing significant
services to various government entities and actively contributed and participated
in the planning process, implementation of the audit work plan, and preparation
of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and other various reports.
PROFESSIONAL & CIVIC AFFILIATIONS
 Member, California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)
RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION
BS Degree in Business
Administration, emphasis in
Accounting from California State
University, Long Beach
AREAS OF EXPERTISE
Audits
Reviews























City of Garden Grove
City of Palm Springs
Castaic Lake Water Agency
Chino Basin Water Conservation District
Chino Basin Watermaster
Big Bear City Community Services District
Gold Coast Transit
Hi-Soledad-Mission Water District
Lake Hemet Municipal Water District
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Palmdale Water District
Port of Hueneme – Oxnard Harbor District
San Lorenzo Valley Water District
Scotts Valley Water District
Solano Irrigation District
Stallion Springs Community Services District
Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority
The Farm Mutual Water Company
Nature Reserve of Orange County
Orange County Coastkeepers
Semper Fi Fund
Bi-Bett Corporation
Ujima Family Recovery Services
CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
 Various municipal accounting courses offered by the California Society of CPAs
and local universities including:
200 E. Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
o
o
o
Governmental Financial Reporting Standards and Practices
Yellow Book: Government Auditing Standards
Municipal Accounting
 Has met the current CPE educational requirements to perform audits of
governmental agencies
deana.ilagan@pungroup.com
18
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section V – Similar Engagement with Other Government Entities
The following engagements are ranked based on total staff hours. Please contact the following governmental
agencies to learn more about their experiences working with us.
Reference No. 1
Governmental Client Name: Palmdale Water District
Contact Individual: Mr. Dennis Hoffmeyer
Address: 2029 East Avenue “Q”, Palmdale, CA 93550
Year: 2014 - Present
Description of Services Provided:
 Audit and preparation of the Basic Financial Statements
Phone No: (661) 456-1021
Reference No. 2
Governmental Client Name: El Toro Water District
Contact Individual: Ms. Neely Shahbakht
Address: 24251 Los Alisos Blvd., Lake Forest, CA 92630
Year: 2014 - Present
Description of Services Provided:
 Audit of the Basic Financial Statements
 Quarterly Agreed-Upon Procedures Engagement
Phone No: (949) 837-7050 x 240
Reference No. 3
Governmental Client Name: Marina Coast Water District
Contact Individual: Ms. Kelly Cadiente
Phone No: (831) 384-6131
Address: 11 Reservation Road, Marina, CA 93933
Year: 2012 - Present
Description of Services Provided:
 Audit of the Basic Financial Statements
http://www.mcwd.org/docs/financials/CAFR%202014%20-%20Final.pdf
 Audit of Expenditures of Federal Awards in accordance with OMB Circular A-133
Reference No. 4
Governmental Client Name: Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Contact Individual: Mr. Joseph Lillio, Finance Manager
Phone No: (818) 251-2128
Address: 4232 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, CA 95202
Year: 2013 - Present
Description of Services Provided:
 Audit of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR).
http://www.lvmwd.com/home/showdocument?id=4683
 Las Virgenes-Triunfo Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
Reference No. 5
Governmental Client Name: San Dieguito Water District
Contact Individual: Ms. Cindy Choquette, Sr. Financial Analyst
Address: 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024
Year: 2014 - Present
Description of Services Provided:
 Audit and preparation of the Basic Financial Statements.
19
Phone No: (760) 943-2290
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section VI – Specific Audit Approach
Understanding of the Scope
The East Orange Water District (“District”) is requesting proposals from qualified certified public accounts to audit
its financial statements for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, and the following two (2) years.
The Firm will:
Perform an audit of the general purpose financial statements, as well as supporting documentation and schedules
in accordance with auditing standards generally accepting in the United States of America, and standards
applicable to financial audits contained in Government Audit Standards issued by the Controller General of the
United States.

Issue a separate “management letter” that includes recommendations for improvements in internal
control, operations and procedures, other significant observations that are considered to be nonreportable conditions, and management response to the recommendations.

Render an opinion on the financial statements as to whether they present fairly, in all material respects,
the financial position of the District and the changes in · financial position in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and issue an independent auditors' report stating this opinion.

Test internal control over financial reporting and compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, and grant agreements and other matters, in accordance with Government Auditing Standards,
and issue a report on their considerations.
The firm will communicate immediately and in writing all irregularities and illegal acts, or indications of illegal acts,
of which they become aware, to the Board President and General Manager.
The partner in charge of the audit will attend two (2) meetings at which the audit report will be discussed.
The auditor will assist the District in providing more meaningful and concise financial statements by seeking
improved methods of reporting.
Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers
The Firm will retain, at its own expense, all working papers and reports for a minimum of (7) seven years
(California Law), unless the District notifies the Firm writing of the need to extend the retention period. Upon
request, the Firm will make working papers available to East Orange County Water District or other governmental
agencies included in the audit of federal grants.
The Firm will comply with reasonable inquiries from successor auditors and allow them to review working papers
that relate to matters of continuing accounting significance. 20
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Proposed segmentation of the engagement
The audit will be performed in four phases:
Initial Planning Meeting:
The Engagement Partner and Manager will meet with District’s
Management to get up to speed with District policies and
procedures, establish any specific requirements Management may
have identification of unique transactions, implementation of new
GASB pronouncements and develop the audit work plan for the
engagement.
Interim:
The Engagement Team—including the Engagement Partner—will assess accounting policies adopted by
the District, obtain an understanding of the District and its operating environment, review internal controls
on all significant transaction classes, perform walkthroughs and/or tests of internal control, perform
preliminary analytical procedures, evaluate Single Audit compliance (if needed), identify any audit issues,
and prepare confirmation correspondence. The Engagement Team and District Management will establish
expectations including responsibilities and assignments for the year-end audit, and will hold a progress
status meeting at the end of the Interim phase.
Year-End:
The Engagement Team—including the Engagement Partner—will conduct audit procedures on account
balances in the general ledger, finish confirmation procedures, perform preliminary analytical procedures,
search for unrecorded liabilities, perform substantive analytical review procedures, complete work on
compliance with Federal Assistance, and conclude fieldwork. The Engagement Team and District
Management will hold an exit conference at the end of the Year-End phase.
Reporting:
The Firm will review and prepare audit reports and perform quality control procedures in accordance with
the Quality Control Standards issued by the AICPA. We will also review reports for compliance with GFOA
reporting guidelines at no additional cost. Any comments will be issued in a letter to Management. At the
District‘s request, the Engagement Partner, Concurring Partner, and Managers will present the audit to the
District’s governing body.
The Firm will complete the audit fieldwork and issue all reports within the established timeframe, assuming no
internal or external (CalPERS GASB No. 68 Reporting) District circumstances delay the audit.
Objectives of Our Services
Our primary objective for the proposed audit is to examine the District’s financial statements and express our
opinions on their fairness of presentation, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Other
objectives that will benefit the District include the following:





To offer beneficial observations and recommendations about policies and procedures for accounting and
operating controls.
To identify opportunities to make District operations more efficient and reduce costs.
To perform the audit efficiently and effectively, so disruption to office operations is minimized.
To provide continuing advisory services to help the District implement recommendations.
To meet these objectives at no additional cost to the District.
The Engagement Team will perform the audit in accordance with the Firm’s quality-control procedures, which
include following standard audit programs, careful planning, using industry-standardized software for auditing and
internal control documentation, and welcoming an objective review of audit work.
The Firm will supply portable computers and second monitors to the onsite staff members.
Our audit approach emphasizes careful planning, open communication, and proper assignment of responsibilities.
This method ensures that audit requirements will be met with minimal disruption of the District’s daily operations,
and that the audit will proceed efficiently with full understanding between the Engagement Team and the District.
21
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Project Schedule
In order to accomplish our audit objectives and meet your deadlines for delivery, the sequence and timing of our
procedures are critical. Interim work is to be performed during May - June (District preference of dates); final
fieldwork to be performed and completed during August – September (District preference of dates); and delivery
of the Final Drafts of auditor’s opinions on the financial statements and Management Letter no later than October
15th per District requirements. The delivery of the final auditor’s report and management letter is to be delivered
by December.
Tim ing
Activity
April - June (schedule meeting during this
period)
Conduct audit entrance conference.
During May - June (2 to 3 days scheduled
during this period at the District's
convenience)
Perform preliminary procedures including: transition efforts, initial
control assessments, minute and contract/major agreement
review , major transaction review , conduct EDP review , final
controls assessment, determination of specific audit procedures,
provide finance department w ith audit plan and listing of audit
schedules required, conduct progress conference w ith key
Finance personnel.
During August - September (2 to 3 days
w orking days during this period)
Commence audit fieldw ork and execute detailed audit plan,
conduct progress conference w ith key Finance personnel.
By October 15th
Present drafts of the Annual Financial Report Opinions,
Management Report, Other Letters and conduct an exit
conference. Present report to the Board of Directors and
Management
By December
Deliver five (5) copies of the Financial Statements, related reports,
and management letters. Present Final Financial Statements to the
Board of Directors
Level of staff and number of hours to be assigned to each proposed segment of the
engagement
We understand that the District is looking for value in the professional relationship they have with their auditors.
Value comes from the knowledge, experience and dedication that the auditing firm employs. We stress “employ”
because all of the knowledge and expertise shown on paper will not benefit you unless it is applied. This
application equates to time spent. We have developed an hours plan that we feel will accomplish the objectives of
the District and meet your particular needs. We have used the information you have shared with us and our
experience over the years auditing other governmental entities including cities of a similar size and nature to
develop an effective and efficient plan for all major areas.
22
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Total Hours:
Staff Classification
Perform ing Work
Partners
Managers
Supervisory Staff
Professional Staff
Estim ated
Hours Annually
10
30
38
10
Total Annual Hours:
88
Hours by Audit Phase
Phase I - Planning
Phase II - Interim
Phase III - Year End
Phase IV - Reporting
Total Annual Hours:
Hours
8
25
35
20
88
Extent to which statistical sampling is to be used in this engagement and the sample
size
In our audit approach, statistical sampling is used in conjunction with our skilled judgment and knowledge of each
situation. The population size and assurance level needed from any given test will determine the sample size
used in our testing.
Type and extent of analytical procedures to be used in the engagement
We use analytical procedures during the interim phase to set up expectations for the year-to-date results and
balances and compare them with budgeted and prior-year amounts. This allows us to forecast year-end amounts,
reducing the workload during the year-end phase and allowing us to focus on areas of concern.
We also use trend and ratio analysis to identify any uncertain or unusual events. In order to perform these
analysis, our firm performs a survey of special districts and counties and develops benchmarks on certain key
financial indicators, such as cost of services to tax revenues ratios, average general fund balance, capital assets,
debt per capital, general fund unassigned fund balance to total general fund expenditures, etc.
Our staff members have the knowledge and experience to effectively use analytical procedures to the District’s
benefit.
Approach to be taken to gain and document an understanding of East Orange County
Water District’s internal control structure
Audit risk assessment will be established by an internal control review, combined with the Engagement Team’s
understanding of the District’s operations and accounting software. Using the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations (COSO) Framework, staff members will evaluate the District’s processes and identify any control
deficiencies. These diagnostic review procedures allow the Engagement Team to evaluate the District’s systems
and controls and to provide constructive feedback to District Management.
The Engagement Team will perform a walkthrough of the District’s accounting systems, including processes for
financial reporting, revenue recognition and cash receipts, purchasing/contract management and cash
disbursements, and payroll and related liabilities, etc. Auditors will document the process with flowcharts or
narrative summary.
23
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Approach to be taken in determining laws and regulations that will be subject to audit
test work
The Firm stays continually up to date with audit requirements—including new regulations, compliance
supplements, state guidelines, and pertinent contracts—to ensure that we conduct audits in accordance with
applicable laws and regulations. We test transactions for compliance with the Single Audit Act and California
Government Code provisions of applicable grant guidelines, requirements of local measures, etc.
For example, the Single Audit Act requires that we determine which grants to include in our audit and select
transactions from those grants for detailed testing. While most transactions are tested as part of the Interim
phase, we cannot determine which grants to test for the Single Audit until the Year-End phase of audit.
Our compliance audits of cash, investments, debt covenants, and other areas are performed in accordance with
the California Government code, which has many provisions and regulations covering investments.
Approach to be taken in determining audit samples for purposes of compliance testing.
To test compliance, we follow the AICPA’s Audit Sampling Considerations of Circular A-133 Compliance Audits.
We will select an appropriate sample size based on our professional judgment and knowledge. Any deviations
from control and compliance requirements will be documented.
24
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section VII – Identification of Anticipated Potential Audit Problems
While we do not expect any problems with the audit, we will carefully investigate and monitor the following
common problem areas:



Investments:
o Compliance with GASB 31 and GASB 34
o Authorization and approval process for District investments
o Controls to assure District’s compliance with investment limitations and types of specific
investments
o Monitoring by the District of its investments
Financial Reporting:
o CAFR compliance with current reporting and disclosure requirements issued by GASB
o CAFR eligibility for financial reporting conformance awards issued by GFOA
o Compliance with the various GASBs in effect
o Compliance with infrastructure obligations and regulatory provisions
Internal Control Structure:
o District’s internal control functions and compliance with proper internal control philosophies
o Computer-system processes and controls, and adequacy of the control environment
Over the period of this proposal, several new GASB pronouncements will become effective. The Engagement
Team will pay specific attention to the following new and upcoming pronouncements, and any others that become
effective during the proposal period, in order to determine proper implementation procedures:



GASB 68 – Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions – an amendment of GASB Statement No. 27
GASB 69 – Government Combinations and Disposals of Government Operations
GASB 71 – Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measuring Date
GASB 68 and 71 Implementation
Gary M. Caporicci, the Engagement Concurring Partner, has tremendous expertise in assisting clients with the
implementation of GASB Statement No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions, and Statement No.
71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date—an amendment of GASB
Statement No. 68. Clients of the Pun Group will benefit from his expertise during the entire process of
implementation of these Standards throughout the engagement.
Description: Designed to present the New Pension Standards from the Governmental Auditing Standards Board
(GASB). These standards are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2014 and are applicable to all
State and Local government agencies. This program will cover the following standards, as well as any updates.
o
o
GASB No. 68, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions
GASB No 71, Pension Transition for Contributions Made Subsequent to the Measurement Date—
an amendment of GASB Statement No. 68
Objectives:
 Understand the accounting depth and financial reporting impact of the New Pension Standards
 Review the accounting and financial reporting of significant accounts including:
 Total Pension Liability
 Net Pension Liability
 Deferred Outflows and Deferred Inflows of Resources
 Net Fiduciary Position
 Pension Expense
 Present and thoroughly review the audit implications and solutions for the retirement systems
auditor’s and the local government agencies auditor.
25
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Major Topics:
 Accounting and financial reporting, including expanded Note Disclosures and
Supplementary Information
 Identify and explain critical dates for implementation
 Understand and describe the actuary’s role as to key dates and actuarial information
Required
Client Training Seminar
Also, every year, the Firm hosts a conference to update governmental clients on new technical accounting
and financial issues. The day-long session—held in Clovis, San Diego, Cerritos, and Danville—qualifies for
eight hours of CPE with the California Board of Accountancy.
Participants in the most recent training seminar received a high-level examination of numerous technical issues,
including the following:






New and anticipated Pronouncements issued by Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and
future issues under consideration by GASB
Fraud in Government
Current Development in Marijuana Dispensaries and Related Internal Control Concerns
What you need to know, as an auditee, for your 2014 Single Audits, including the OMB Circular A-133
Compliance Supplement
Discussion of GASB Statements No. 67 and 68, “Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pension
Plans”
Overview of the Survey of Cities and Counties
Importantly, all of our clients are invited to attend to the Pun Group, LLP client training seminar FREE OF
CHARGE.
26
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Section VIII – Bidding Proposal
Certification
We are committed to the performance of a high quality audit at the most reasonable fee level possible, both
initially and throughout the engagement. Also, both partners will provide advice and consultation as needed, at no
additional cost to the East Orange County Water District.
Name of Firm:
The Pun Group, LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
Certification: Kenneth H. Pun is entitled to represent the Firm, empowered to submit the bid, and authorized to
sign a contract with the East Orange County Water District.
Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price
Following are our total “not-to-exceed” fees for each of the three (3) years of the engagement (FY2015-2017), per
District’s request:
Service
2014-2015
East Orange County Water District Financial
Audit, and related reports
2015-2016
2016-2017
$
12,000
$
12,000
$
12,000
Annual State Controllers' Report Preparation $
500
$
500
$
500
12,500
$
12,500
$
12,500
Total for fiscal year (not-to-exceed)
$
Rates for Professional Services
Below is detailed information regarding the estimated number of hours and rates to be dedicated to the City’s
engagement, delineated by staffing level.
Financial Audit
Hours
Rate
Partner
Manager
Supervisor
10
30
38
$ 175.00
$ 150.00
$ 125.00
Staff
10
$ 100.00
Grand Total
88
27
Fee
$
1,750
4,500
4,750
1,000
$
12,000
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Rates for Additional Professional Service
The Firm’s policy is to maintain flexible billing rates in order to meet the needs of clients and help them control
costs. In the interest of the start of our long-term relationship, we will absorb all costs required to familiarize
ourselves with the operations and accounting systems, as well as, travel, typing, clerical and printing costs.
Additionally, our Partners will be available to provide advice and consultation as necessary to the East Orange
County Water District. These costs will also be absorbed by the Firm.
Any supplemental reports, audits, or agreed-upon procedures not covered by this proposal may be added in a
written addendum/agreement prior to commencing audit work. The Firm and the District shall discuss and
approve the scope and associated costs of these tasks. Any additional work will be performed at the same rates
set forth on the schedule of fees and expenses included in the above cost proposal.
Manner of Payment
Engagement Team members are required to maintain timesheets detailing the date, number of hours, and work
performed for every audit task. The Firm will collect these timesheets and bill East Orange County Water District,
at the rates outlined in this proposal, in three stages: at the conclusion of the interim phase, at the conclusion of
the Year-End phase, and after presentation and acceptance of the final audit reports. Billing is based on a
percentage of completion of content. Interim billings will cover a period not less than a calendar month. The billing
amounts generally break down as follows:
Work Performed
% of
Proposal
Amount
For Planning
For Interim w ork
For year end w ork
At Presentation and Acceptance of Final Reports
10%
40%
40%
10%
Total
100%
28
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
Benefits of Choosing The Pun Group, LLP
The Pun Group, LLP is known for its professionalism, integrity, and ability to guide clients through their unique
challenges. Firm policy emphasizes providing personalized client service, so our carefully chosen engagement
teams are led by an experienced partner who is directly involved in the work. This philosophy allows us to provide
a superior level of service.
We trust that this proposal has given you the information you need about the Firm, the Engagement Team
members, overall audit approach, cost-saving measures, and audit fees. We are committed to exceeding your
expectations, and we look forward to bringing our experience and expertise to the East Orange County Water
District and providing you with the excellent level of service that you expect and deserve.
Thank You
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to introduce the Firm and submit our qualifications to provide you with
audit services. Please direct inquiries to:
Mr. Kenneth H. Pun, CPA, CGMA
Managing Partner
200 East Sandpointe Avenue, Suite 600
Santa Ana, California 92707
ken.pun@pungroup.com
(949) 777-8801
Sincerely,
The Pun Group, LLP
Certified Public Accountants and Business Advisors
29
This page intentionally left blank.
30
APPENDIX  Proof of Insurance
31
This page intentionally left blank.
32
East Orange County Water District
Proposal to Provide Professional Audit Services
33
EXPERIENCE
PRINCIPLES
KNOWLEDGE
COMMITMENT
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REQUEST
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to District Resolution No. 658, prior authorization for Board Member conference/meeting
attendance and travel is required. There are two upcoming events that Board Members may wish to
attend:
•
MWDOC Elected Officials Forum – Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Registration: Free
Location: MWDOC Office, Fountain Valley
•
Association of California CitiesOrange County, Infrastructure
Summit
Friday, June 12, 2015
Registration: $135.00
Location: Hilton Hotel, Costa Mesa
Information regarding the Forum and the Infrastructure Summit is attached.
RECOMMENDATION
The Board approve attendance at the MWDOC Elected Officials Forum for designated Board
Members as desired.
Please Join Us
We would like to invite you to join us for our semiannual
Elected Officials' Forum on Thursday, April 29, 2015. This
meeting will focus on:
MWDOC Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016
(You can access our budget using this link:
http://www.mwdoc.com/filesgallery/06_Budget.pdf)
We strive to provide an educational and relevant experience for all attendees and we are soliciting your
input. In addition to the agenda items above, we would
like to know what other topics interest you. If you have
additional items you would like to discuss, please let us
know through the registration link.
~Please register
all attendees~
Register Now
When:
Thursday, April 29, 2015
6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
*Due to the hour, a modest
meal will be provided.
Where:
Logistics
We request that each City and Water District designate one
elected official to attend the meeting as their official
representative. Other elected officials or staff are of
course, welcome to attend.
We will be providing a modest meal of sandwiches,
beverages, and light snacks. The meeting will begin at
6:00 p.m.
In order to provide name plates and sufficient seating,
please register all attendees using the link provided in the
sidebar, or contact Pat Meszaros at (714) 593-5025 or
pmeszaros@mwdoc.com.
Who We Are
The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC)
is the wholesale water provider and resource planning
agency for all of Orange County (with the exception of the
cities of Anaheim, Fullerton, and Santa Ana). Our efforts
focus on sound planning and appropriate investments in
water supply development, water use efficiency, public
information, water education, emergency preparedness,
and legislative advocacy, including Metropolitan
representation and rate development. MWDOC serves
Orange County through twenty-seven water retailers and
the Orange County Water District. Learn More.
MWDOC Board Room
18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92728
Directions
RSVP Contact:
Pat Meszaros
Senior Executive Assistant
(714) 593-5025
pmeszaros@mwdoc.com
Additional
Questions or
Suggestions:
Rob Hunter
General Manager
(714) 593-5026
rhunter@mwdoc.com
Stay Connected
Forward this email
This email was sent to lohlund@eocwd.com by tbaca@mwdoc.com | Update Profile/Email Address | Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.
Municipal Water District of Orange County | 18700 Ward Street | Fountain Valley | CA | 92708
Association of
California CitiesOrange County
PRESENTS
Fr i d ay
June 12,
2015
7:30 AM to 1:30 PM
Hilton Orange County/
Costa Mesa
3050 Bristol St, Costa Mesa, CA
EARLY BIRD RATE
Ends April 15
Early Bird ACC-OC Member Ticket: $115
Early Bird Non-Member Ticket: $142
2025
Your Future
is Now
featuring infrastructure panels
• Street Cars for Orange
County Now
• Desalination:
Beyond Water 101
• Planning Ahead
for Regional Infrastructure
REGULAR RATE
Begins April 16 and Ends May 31
ACC-OC Member Ticket: $135
Non-Member Ticket: $172
LATE RATE
Begins June 1
ACC-OC Late Member Ticket: $150
Non-Member Late Ticket: $192
Sponsorship Opportunities Available
For more information or to RSVP
please contact Randall Avila at
events@accoc.org
or (949) 440-1027
In Collaboration with
Sponsored by
Featured Panels
*More panelists to be announced
Street Cars
for Orange
County Now
Desalination:
Beyond
Water 101
Planning Ahead
for Regional
Infrastructure
Hon. Miguel Pulido
Joe Geever
Hon. Mark Kersey
Mayor of Santa Ana
Surfrider Foundation
of California
San Diego City
Councilmember
Natalie Meeks
Scott Maloni
Public Works
Director of Anaheim
Poseidon Water
Darrell Johnson
Dr. Allan Bernstein
OCTA CEO
Tustin City
Councilmember
MODERATED BY
Hon. Curt Pringle
Former Speaker of the California State Assembly
and Former Mayor of Anaheim
Event Sponsors
GOLD
PLATINUM
S I LV E R
Sponsorship Opportunities
Platinum Sponsor $3,000
Silver Sponsor $1,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four (4) Event Tickets: One (1) head table seat with a key
transportation leader and three (3) general admission tickets
One (1) Copy of the ACC-OC City Directory
Two-page company ad in the event program
Company logo featured on all 2015 City Infrastructure Summit
emails
One vendor booth
Company logo on event signage
Company logo featured on screens throughout the event
Verbal recognition during the event program
Gold Sponsor $2,000
•
•
•
•
•
•
Three (3) Event Tickets: One (1) head table seat with an ACCOC Board Member and two (2) general admission tickets
Two-page company ad in the event program
One vendor booth
Company logo on event signage
Company logo featured on screens throughout the event
Verbal recognition during the event program
Two (2) Event Tickets
One-page company ad in the event program
One vendor booth
Company logo on event signage
Company logo featured on screens throughout the event
Verbal recognition during the event program
Bronze Sponsor $500
•
•
•
•
•
•
One (1) Event Ticket
Half-page company ad in the event program
One vendor booth
Company logo on event signage
Company logo featured on screens throughout the event
Verbal recognition during the event program
SPONSOR AND INDIVIDUAL TICKET REGISTRATION
Friday, June 12, 2015 • 7:30 AM to 1:30 PM
YES! I/We would like to sponsor/attend the 2015 City Infrastructure Summit:
Platinum Sponsor ($3,000)
Gold Sponsor ($2,000)
Silver Sponsor ($1,000) …Bronze Sponsor ($500)
I would like to attend, please reserve ____ tickets.
Name
Company
Title
Address
City
State
Phone
Zip
Email
To contribute by credit card, please circle/check and complete the following: … Amex … Discover … Mastercard … Visa
Name on Card
Card Number
Amount $
Exp. Date
Security Code
For more information on sponsorships, please contact Randall Avila at events@accoc.org or (949) 440-1027
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: LOCAL SEWER TRANSFER – MARCH STATUS UPDATE
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
ACTIVITIES UPDATE
Outreach & Communications
On March 25th, President VanderWerff, Director Davert and General Manager Ohlund met
with Mesa Water Board Members Shawn Dewayne and Ethan Temianka and General Manager
Paul Shoenberger to discuss, among other items, the District’s application for the transfer of
Sewer Area #7 sewers.
OCSD
Superintendent Mendzer continues to meet with OCSD field supervisor Doug Rech on at least
a weekly basis to review the prior week’s work and contractor performance.
General Manager Ohlund discussed the District’s application and review status with
OCLAFCO with OCSD General Manager Jim Herberg.
OC LAFCO
President VanderWerff and General Manager Ohlund attended the March 20th OCLAFCO
Strategic Plan Meeting. LAFCO staff reviewed their workplan for the upcoming year including
key focus areas in the unincorporated islands, South Orange County governance, the Fiscal
Trends Program and the next round of Municipal Service Reviews. LAFCO staff’s schedule
anticipates that the EOCWD sewer transfer application will come before the Commission in May.
RECOMMENDATION
Information item only; no action required.
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT:
WHOLESALE AND RETAIL ZONE WATER DEMANDS – MARCH 2015
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
Wholesale Zone Water Demands
Attached is a graphical representation of the Wholesale Zone water demand through March 31, 2015. Total water
sales for the month of March totaled 389.41 AF; total year-to-date sales are 3,673.10 AF. This is a 41 AF or 11%
increase in demand from March, 2014.
Retail Zone Water Demands
Please note that MWDOC has changed the format of the Retail Zone Water Usage Report effective November 1,
2014.
Page 1 of the report is an overview of the sources of water supply and our monthly usage. Currently, all water used
for the RZ is groundwater. Since the beginning of the 2014/15 water year, imported water has provided only 2% of
the total supply, while groundwater provides 98%. Due to the EOCWD participating in the Coastal Pumping
Transfer Program (CPTP), our groundwater usage is much higher currently than it has been historically.
Page 2 of the report depicts our 10-year water usage and how much of this was groundwater versus imported
water. As shown on this graph, after several years of declining water demand, last year’s demand is approaching
our 10 year average. We expect that this will decrease this year due to the enhanced conservation required under
the drought.
Page 3 provides a comparison of water demand versus precipitation, water demand versus average high
temperature and water demand versus unemployment rates. As would be expected, generally in wet years, demand
is lower than in dry years, whereas average temperature doesn’t have as much of a cause/effect relationship. There
does appear to be a slight relationship between unemployment rates and water demand, with increasing demand
occurring as unemployment rates decrease.
As shown on Page 4, total demand for the month of March was 72 AF; this is 3 AF (5%) higher than our demand for
February 2014 and 5 AF or (7%) higher than our average demand for the last 6 years.
Also attached are graphs depicting the Retail Zone’s water demand; they have deleted Page 5 that graphed our
historic water use by year and added a table that shows "gallons per capita per day" or GPCD. The table shows
our residents’ per person, per day water consumption for the month of March 2015 (234) compared to the
M a r c h 2014 (223). This number is derived by dividing the total amount of water used by the population (a
number calculated by the Center for Demographics at Cal State Fullerton). For comparison, the average GPCD for
the South Coast area of California is 176 GPCD (Source: Department of Water Resources).
Wholesale Zone Water Demand
Total Monthly Sales for March, 2014 =389.41AF
Total YTD Sales for July - March 2015 = 3,673.10 AF
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
EOCWD
Jul-14
GSWC
Aug-14
Sep-14
IRWD
Oct-14
Nov-14
Orange
Dec-14
Jan-15
Tustin
2/1/205
Mar-15
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
East Orange County Retail Zone Overview of Usage
FY 2014-15 Monthly Water Use
Type of Supply
MWDOC
OCWD Pumped GW
Total
July
27
73
100
August
29
75
104
September
29
73
102
October
26
67
93
November
21
53
74
December
11
29
41
January
16
43
59
February
16
38
53
March
20
52
72
April
May
June
Total
195
503
698
2014 MWDOC Usage
27
29
29
26
21
11
53
62
69
33
26
20
407
MWDOC Calendar Year and Fiscal Year Purchases
2014-15 Sources of Water Supply
100
90
80
MWDOC
28%
ACRE FEET
70
OCWD Pumped
GW
72%
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2014-15
2014
Jul
27
27
Aug
29
29
Sep
29
29
Oct
26
26
Nov
21
21
Dec
11
11
Jan
16
53
Feb
16
62
Mar
20
69
Apr
May
Jun
33
26
20
Total
195
407
2014-15 Water Supply Sources
120
100
Monthly Usage (AF)
80
60
40
20
0
July
August
September
October
November
December
OCWD Pumped GW
January
February
March
April
May
June
MWDOC
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
4/10/2015
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
Annual Water Usage
Type of Supply
MWDOC
OCWD Pumped GW
Total
2004-05
462.7
641.9
1,105
2005-06
839.5
280.2
1,120
2006-07
707.1
526.3
1,233
2007-08
770.0
416.0
1,186
2008-09
392.3
759.1
1,151
2009-10
409.3
612.0
1,021
2010-11
663.8
306.5
970
2011-12
819.1
192.1
1,011
2012-13
431.3
605.2
1,037
2013-14
322.0
751.3
1,073
1,090.77
1,090.77
Average
581.7
509.1
1,091
10 Year Water Supply Sources
1,400
10 Year Average 1,091AF
1,200
1,000
Total Usage (AF)
800
600
10 Year Average
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
1,090.77
400
200
0
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
OCWD Pumped GW
2009-10
MWDOC
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
10 Year Average
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
4/10/2015
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
Water Usage Variables
Type of Supply
Rain Fall (inches)
Avg High Temp (F)
LA Unemployment %
Total Water Usage
2004-05
30.2
76.6
5.5%
1,105
2005-06
8.5
77.1
4.6%
1,120
2006-07
2.2
78.4
4.4%
1,233
2007-08
9.5
77.7
5.5%
1,186
2008-09
9.9
78.6
9.1%
1,151
2009-10
16.8
77.8
11.6%
1,021
2010-11
21.4
76.1
11.7%
970
2011-12
8.3
76.8
10.9%
1,011
2012-13
6.4
75.4
9.5%
1,037
2013-14
4.4
77.8
8.2%
1,073
Average
11.7
77.2
8.1%
1,091
10 Year Water Usage VS Precipitation (SNA #121 Station)
1,300
30.2
30
25
1,100
21.4
1,000
20
16.8
900
9.5
8.5
15
9.9
8.3
800
10
6.4
2.2
700
4.4
Precipitation (Inches)
Total Usage (AF)
1,200
35
5
0
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Total Water Usage
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Rain Fall (inches)
10 Year Water Usage VS Average High Temperature (Santa Ana Fire Station)
1,300
79
78.6
1,200
Total Usage (AF)
1,100
79
77.8
77.7
77.8
78
78
77.1
77
76.8
76.6
77
1,000
76.1
76
76
75.4
900
Temperature (F)
78.4
75
75
800
74
700
74
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Total Water Usage
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Avg High Temp (F)
0%
1,200
2%
1,100
5.5%
4.6%
4%
4.4%
5.5%
6%
1,000
8.2%
9.1%
900
9.5%
11.6%
800
11.7%
8%
Unemployment %
Total Usage (AF)
10 Year Water Usage VS L.A. Metro Annual Average Unemployment Percentages
1,300
10%
10.9%
12%
700
14%
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Total Water Usage
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
LA Unemployment %
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
4/10/2015
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
East Orange County Retail Zone Detailed Usage
10 Year Monthly (Fiscal Year, July-June)
Fiscal Year
2007-08 Usage
2008-09 Usage
2009-10 Usage
2010-11 Usage
2011-12 Usage
2012-13 Usage
2013-14 Usage
Average of Last 6 FYs
July
139
127
123
112
120
114
104
116
Monthly Usage Percentage
August September
125
114
127
114
124
112
118
109
119
98
118
107
108
111
119
108
11%
Water Usage By Source
Imported
MWD via EO Wholesale
CPTP
Imported Total
July
Local
OCWD Pumped GW
Less CPTP
Local Total
Total Usage 2014-15
11%
10%
9%
8%
January
50
91
52
58
71
58
81
69
5%
February
58
46
35
55
58
62
63
53
7%
March
88
83
59
54
67
73
69
67
5%
6%
April
108
101
74
78
65
85
80
80
May
114
103
96
92
95
101
108
99
8%
9%
June
119
100
110
98
100
103
103
102
10%
Total
1,186
1,152
1,021
970
1,011
1,037
1,073
1,044
100%
August September
0.0
7.3
28.6
21.6
29
29
October November December
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.3
21.2
11.4
26
21
11
January
February
0.0
0.0
15.5
15.8
16
16
March
0.0
20.2
20
April
May
June
0.0
27.1
27
-
-
-
July
99.9
(27.1)
73
August September
103.9
94.4
(28.6)
(21.6)
75
73
October November December
93.1
74.4
40.8
(26.3)
(21.2)
(11.4)
67
53
29
January
February
58.7
53.2
(15.8)
(15.5)
43
38
March
72.4
(20.2)
52
April
May
June
-
-
-
Total
690.8
(187.7)
503
-
-
-
698
100
FY 14-15 versus FY 13-14
October November December
110
89
72
108
96
57
97
86
55
76
73
49
88
63
68
99
75
42
94
87
66
94
80
56
-3%
104
102
-4%
-8%
93
74
41
59
53
72
-1%
-14%
-38%
-27%
-16%
+5%
2014-15 Water Usage VS 2013-14 Water Usage
Last FY
Current FY
6-Year Average
May
June
Total
7.3
187.7
195
125
ACRE FEET
100
75
50
25
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
March
April
4/10/2015
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
10 Year Monthly (Calendar Year)
Calendar Year
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
6 year Average
January
91
52
58
71
58
81
69
Total Water Usage 2014
2014 VS 2013 Usage
February
46
35
55
58
62
63
53
March
83
59
54
67
73
69
67
April
101
74
78
65
85
80
80
May
103
96
92
95
101
108
99
June
100
110
98
100
103
103
102
July
123
112
120
114
104
116
115
108
103
100
81
63
69
80
+38%
+2%
-6%
-6%
+7%
+1%
-3%
August September
124
112
118
109
119
98
118
107
108
111
119
108
118
107
104
-4%
2014 Water Usage VS 2013 Water Usage
October November December
97
86
55
76
73
49
88
63
68
99
75
42
94
87
66
94
80
56
91
77
56
102
-8%
Last CY
93
74
41
-1%
-14%
-38%
Current CY
Total
1,120
962
990
1,010
1,052
1,076
1,035
1,017
-6%
6-Year Average
125
ACRE FEET
100
75
50
25
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Population
2013 Usage (AF)
2013 GPCD
3,233
2014 Usage (AF)
2014 GPCD
3,247
CY over CY change in GPCD
Jan
58
189
81
261
+72
Feb
62
223
63
226
+3
Mar
73
237
69
222
-15
Apr
85
286
80
267
-19
May
101
329
108
349
+20
Jun
103
345
103
346
+1
Jul
104
337
100
323
-13
Aug
108
351
104
336
-14
Sep
111
373
102
340
-33
Oct
94
307
93
301
-6
Nov
87
292
74
249
-43
Dec
66
215
41
132
-83
Total
1,052
291
1,017
280
-11
Population
2013-14 Usage (AF)
2013-14 GPCD
3,233
2014-15 Usage (AF)
2014-15 GPCD
3,247
FY over FY change in GPCD
Jul
104
337
100
323
-13
Aug
108
351
104
336
-14
Sep
111
373
102
340
-33
Oct
94
307
93
301
-6
Nov
87
292
74
249
-43
Dec
66
215
41
132
-83
Jan
81
262
59
190
-72
Feb
63
227
53
191
-36
Mar
69
223
72
234
+11
Apr
80
268
-
May
108
350
-
Jun
103
347
-
Total
1,073
296
*Cumulative through the end of the last month shown
*GPCD = Total Monthly Production/ Population/days in the month
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
4/10/2015
East Orange County Retail Zone Water Usage Report
Cumulative Water Usage by Fiscal Year
1,200
Jul
127
123
112
120
114
104
100
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Aug
253
246
230
240
232
211
204
Sep
367
358
338
337
339
323
306
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
455
415
425
437
417
399
541
487
488
512
504
473
595
536
556
555
570
514
647
594
627
613
651
573
Cumulative
"Retail"
Water
Usage718
474
570
627
Feb
764
682
649
685
675
714
626
Mar
847
741
703
752
748
782
698
Apr
948
815
781
817
833
862
#N/A
May
1,051
911
873
912
934
970
#N/A
Jun
1,152
1,021
970
1,011
1,037
1,073
#N/A
1,000
800
ACRE-FEET
600
400
200
2008-09
Jul
127
Aug
253
Sep
367
Oct
474
Nov
570
Dec
627
Jan
718
Feb
764
Mar
847
Apr
948
May
1,051
Jun
1,152
2009-10
123
246
358
455
541
595
647
682
741
815
911
1,021
2010-11
112
230
338
415
487
536
594
649
703
781
873
970
2011-12
120
240
337
425
488
556
627
685
752
817
912
1,011
2012-13
114
232
339
437
512
555
613
675
748
833
934
1,037
2013-14
104
211
323
417
504
570
651
714
782
862
970
1,073
2014-15
100
204
306
399
473
514
573
626
698
prepared by Municipal Water District of Orange County
* Numbers are Subject to Change
4/10/2015
MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT:
DROUGHT RESPONSE REPORT
DATE:
April 16, 2015
BACKGROUND
On July 15, 2014 the SWRCB enacted emergency regulations for urban retail water suppliers.
The regulations consist of three requirements: 1) a prohibition on certain types of water use; 2) an
order for all urban water suppliers to implement mandatory conservation measures; and 3) an
order to provide monthly data on water production.
On August 7th, the Board approved measures to implement the emergency regulations, including
activating Level 1 of our Conservation Ordinance. The attached report is presented to the Board on a
monthly basis to summarize staff’s activities in implementing the Level 1 requirements.
RECOMMENDATION
Information only; no Board action required.
Drought Education/Enforcement Efforts ‐ March 2015
Activity
Date
Action
Meetings
Water Use Efficiency (WUE) Meeting ‐ Nicole Hopp
March 5, 2015
Topics discussed at the meeting include MWDOC Updates: Water Supply/Allocations, FY Budget 15‐16 Development, 2015 Urban Water Management Plan RFP, Agency Drought Response Updates, Public Affairs/WUE Marketing, Survey Results, OC Public Works LID Retrofit Project Presentation, Metropolitan Update: Conservation Program Board Update, Turf Removal Program Update, Media/Outreach Campaign Update, Water Use Efficiency Programs: North/South County Rebate/Grant Programs, Turf Removal Program, Program Evaluations, California Urban Conservation Council.
MWDOC Landscape Water Efficiency Program ‐ Lisa Ohlund/Nicole Hopp
March 17, 2015
Review Comprehensive Landscape Water Use Efficiency Program and support for MWDOC's submittal to the Bureau of Reclamation
MWDOC Manager's Meeting ‐ Lisa Ohlund
March 19, 2015
Discussed MET & MWDOC Water Supply Allocation Plan for implementaiton due to continuing drought.
March 24, 2015
Review of creative materials that are being produced, PSA video update, media buys, field talking points for drought; social media posts, pillars of the Value of Water campaign, PowerPoint Template for general use; Consumer Confidence Reports; Review of 2015/16 Budget
Value of Water Meeting ‐
Lisa Ohlund
Water Waste/High Water Bill Phone Calls
Water Waste ‐ Jerry Mendzer
March 19, 2015
Neighbor reported leak from unoccupied home. Water running down street. Jerry responded and found that the customer's PVC service line was leaking at a joint. Water was turned off and the property was door tagged.
WUE Materials
Water Smart Home Tool Kit ‐
Nicole Hopp
March 9, 2015
Reviewed remarketing of Water Smart Home Certification program and toolkit.
Water Use Efficiency Outreach ‐ Lisa Ohlund
March 13, 2015
Reviewed water use efficiency data with MWDOC Director of Public Affairs and other marketing information
Bill Inserts ‐
Nicole Hopp
March 16, 2015
Ordered bill inserts that promote Water Smart Home certification, smart timers, soil moisture sensors and rotating nozzles.
Drought Social Media/Print Messaging Efforts
Facebook ‐ Nicole Hopp March 1, 2015
In an effort to keep customers more informed, EOCWD posts any Drought or EOCWD Status updates as well as Water Conservation Daily Tweets. Twitter ‐ Active all Month
EOCWD Website Drought Page
Foothill Sentry Ad ‐ Nicole Hopp
March 1, 2015
In an effort to keep customers informed, EOCWD posts any Drought or EOCWD Status updates as well as Water Conservation Daily Tweets. EOCWD, since last September, has begun to build a larger following and received many comments and retweets. Fellow tweeters ask about better water saving or provide information about others wasting water and ask questions on how to prevent runoff.
March 1, 2015
Drought Page objective is to keep Customers Informed about: SWRCB Updates, Reservoir Level Updates. Information of Rebates, MET Drought outreach Campaign, EOCWD Level 1 Water Conservation Material.
March 1, 2015
For the Month of March, EOCWD produced and Ad titled "Lucky to Have You as our Customer" to coincide with the St. Patrick's Day Holiday. The ad recognized several customers for significant water savings and thank them for their outstanding efforts. Customer Rebate Activities
Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) Credits
MWDOC Announcements
March 31, 2015
The GWRS production allocated to EOCWD can be reported as Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR). For the month of March EOCWD showed an IPR credit of 20.9 acre feet (equivalent to 6.8 million gallons or 30% of the RZ's March demand) that was sent to GWRS by sewer customers in the RZ for eventual reuse through the groundwater wells. This number represents "new" water that wasn't imported. MEMO
TO:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM:
GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INTEREST PUBLICATIONS
DATE:
APRIL 16, 2015
Background
Attached to this memo is a copy of information pertinent to current events in the water industry:
• “How to convince people to save water using psychology” April 3, 2015 Pacific Standard Magazine
• “How Jerry Brown made up his mind on drought order”
April 3, 2015 Capitol Alert
• “Leaky pipes a big source of wasted water in California” April 9, 2015 KCRA Local News
Recommendation
Information only; no action required.
How to Convince People to Save Water, Using Psychology - Pacific Standard
Page 1 of 2
HEALTH & BEHAVIOR
How to Convince People to Save
Water, Using Psychology
Shame them and pressure them, and maybe make them pay some money.
FRANCIE DIEP · APR 3, 2015
After four years of drought, California governor Jerry Brown announced this week that the state is
imposing a mandatory 25 percent cut in water use for the vast majority of the state's water districts. This
is the first time in California history officials have mandated people use less water.
As Californians prepare for the cut, we thought we would take a look at some of the strategies studies
have found work to convince people to use less water. Overall, it seems discomfort, peer pressure, and
shame are the best water-saving tools. Our evidence:
1. EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT
Do you heed those hotel-room placards that urge customers to re-use their towels? You might, if you
knew others did. One recent
recent
recentstudy
study
study compared the effectiveness of different wording on those signs. Signs
that read, "75% of guests in this room usually use their towels more than once" worked best. A previous
previous
previous
study
study
study also found something similar. It seems people respond most to social norms, and the more specific
the population ("guests in this room"), the better.
2. SHOWER SHAME
Here's a study in which silent, naked peer pressure made all the difference. As writer Rick Paulas wrote
wrote
wrote
for
for
forPacific
Pacific
PacificStandard
Standard
Standard last year:
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/how-to-convince-people-to-save-water-using-... 4/13/2015
How to Convince People to Save Water, Using Psychology - Pacific Standard
Page 2 of 2
3. DOUBLE DISCOMFORT
In a wonderful
wonderful
wonderfulstudy
study,
study published in 1992, researchers forced study participants to be hypocrites. They
made participants tell other people to take shorter showers. Then they reminded participants that they
had not taken short showers in the past. Study volunteers subjected to this combination of conditions
took significantly shorter showers than participants who only talked to others about showering, or were
reminded of their past poor behavior.
Of course, California's new restrictions will empower the state to deploy something even more
straightforward than social norms and shame. Should water districts not meet their goals, officials are
prepared to levy fines, the New
New
NewYork
York
YorkTimes
Times
Timesreports
reports.
reports Some previous research has found pricing
pricing
pricing and fines
fines
fines are
effective in getting people to save water in certain situations.
It looks like water-saving always requires a little pain, whether it's to your pride, or to your wallet.
SEARCH
http://www.psmag.com/health-and-behavior/how-to-convince-people-to-save-water-using-... 4/13/2015
How Jerry Brown made up his mind on drought order | The Sacramento Bee The Sacrame... Page 1 of 2
Capitol Alert
The go-to source for news on California policy and politics
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Share
How Jerry Brown made up his mind on drought order
BY DAVID SIDERS - DSIDERS@SACBEE.COM
04/02/2015 5:54 PM | Updated: 04/03/2015 2:56 PM
Gov. Jerry Brown, second from left, talks to reporters about the
executive order he signed requiring the state water board to implement
measures in cities and towns to cut water usage by 25 percent
compared with 2013 levels, near Echo Summit, Calif., Wednesday, April
1, 2015. RICH PEDRONCELLI / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
One week before Gov. Jerry Brown strode into a bone dry meadow in the Sierra Nevada to issue the first statewide water reduction
order in California history, he discussed the order at length with his advisers at the Capitol.
Brown knew he would order a 25 percent reduction of water use in urban areas, two administration officials said. But he waited to
make the announcement for two reasons.
First, Brown had hoped storms in December and early February might avert the need for a mandatory water order. But it became the
consensus of administration officials in March – when precipitation and voluntary conservation efforts fell short – that a mandatory
order was necessary.
Brown and his advisers discussed the plan on March 25, then met late into the night on Friday and over the weekend.
In addition to poring over provisions of the order regarding local water agencies’ responsibilities, Brown asked staff members to
include a measure related to new technology.
The result, an administration official said, was part of the executive order labeled “Invest in New Technologies.” It directs stated
agencies to implement a new program to “deploy innovative water management technologies for businesses, residents, industries,
and agriculture.”
The other reason Brown waited until Wednesday to announce the water reduction order was purely a matter of public relations.
Brown’s office knew a snowpack survey in the Sierra Nevada, near Echo Summit, would produce staggering visuals: A dry meadow
that, in normal years, is buried in snow.
By combining the executive order announcement with the snowpack survey, Brown hoped to maximize exposure.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article17261903.html
4/13/2015
How Jerry Brown made up his mind on drought order | The Sacramento Bee The Sacrame... Page 2 of 2
“We knew we needed to get a lot of attention to make sure that people realized this was serious,” one official said.
It worked. A bank of television cameras covered the event, broadcasting images around the world.
Call David Siders, Bee Capitol Bureau, (916) 321-1215 (tel:(916)%20321-1215). Follow him on Twitter @davidsiders (https://twitter.com/davidsiders).
Comments (1) (#tabs-b0710947-1-tabPane-2)
Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Email
Share
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article17261903.html
4/13/2015
Leaky pipes a big source of wasted water in California | Local News - KCRA Home
Page 1 of 2
Leaky pipes a big source of wasted water in
California
Aging infrastructure hampers drought-relief efforts
UPDATED
7:11 PM PDT Apr 09, 2015
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCRA) Sacramento city utility crews kept busy Thursday repairing a leaky pipe on 42nd Street.
It happens "every day," said Craig Robinson, a water superintendent for the city.
Watch report: California cities ramp up enforcement on water wasters | Leaky pipes a big
source of wasted water
Dealing with leaky pipes is a daily occurrence because an estimated 10 percent of Sacramento's
water pipes are at least 100 years old.
In this case, utility crews said hundreds of gallons of water were lost from the pipe before they could
make the repair.
"We're pretty proactive," Robinson said. "We've got leak crews going five days a week. Two crews.
And that's all they do is go out and find leaks."
The leaks are critical in the middle of a water emergency, and the problem is statewide.
At a drought summit in Sacramento on Thursday, the chair of the Water Resources Control Board
said leaky infrastructure is a giant problem.
"There are many communities that are at 20, 30, 40 -- some over 50 percent wastage," Felicia
Marcus said. "And that, at this point, is something that people need to change."
And when those leaks are discovered, utility crews have to flush out the water main to eliminate
contaminants and air in the pipes, so the loss of water becomes even more costly.
On the enforcement side, Shirley Romo, a Sacramento water conservation agent, was busy
Thursday looking for water waste.
She handed out 19 notices of violation for "flooding the gutters, pavement, watering on the wrong
day," Romo said.
In Sacramento, the first violation is a warning, but homeowners can receive $50 fines for the second
violation, and up to a $1,000 fine for the fourth.
Violations can include watering on the wrong day.
http://www.kcra.com/news/leaky-pipes-a-big-source-of-wasted-water-in-california/322888... 4/13/2015
Leaky pipes a big source of wasted water in California | Local News - KCRA Home
Page 2 of 2
"Mondays, Thursdays and Fridays are no-watering days. So if you're watering today, you're going to
get a violation," Romo said. "And we found plenty today."
City water enforcers are now ramping up efforts statewide to crack down on water waste.
At the drought summit, water agencies spread the word about conservation.
"Everyone's going to have to take some sort of a hit," said John Laird, secretary for the Natural
Resources Agency. "And I think that was our message today."
Cutting down on water waste is an essential part of Gov. Jerry Brown's plan to reduce water use by
25 percent statewide.
"I'm getting emails by the tons (from) member agencies that are all of a sudden taking this drought
much more seriously now than they were a week ago," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the
Association of California Water Agencies.
Water waste is also a problem for firefighters. They know they'll need plenty of water to battle blazes
this summer in the midst of a drought.
"The drought has already had an impact," said Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for Cal Fire. "We've
responded to over 600 wildfires already this time of year. That's an unusual number for us in
California. Just last week, we responded to over 150."
Copyright 2015 by KCRA.com All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.kcra.com/news/leaky-pipes-a-big-source-of-wasted-water-in-california/322888... 4/13/2015