Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-13 Board Packet 1 OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTAY SERVICE CORPORATION SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISTRICT BOARDROOM 2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD SPRING VALLEY, CALIFORNIA MONDAY March 18, 2013 3:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION – OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA WORKSHOP 5. DISCUSSION OF RATE STUDY FINDINGS AND A REQUEST TO DIRECT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THE FINDINGS OF THE STUDY INTO THE FISCAL YEAR 2014 RATE MODEL AND BUDGET (BEACHEM/BELL) 6. ADJOURNMENT 2 All items appearing on this agenda, whether or not expressly listed for action, may be deliberated and may be subject to action by the Board. The Agenda, and any attachments containing written information, are available at the District’s website at www.otaywater.gov. Written changes to any items to be considered at the open meeting, or to any attachments, will be posted on the District’s website. Copies of the Agenda and all attachments are also available through the District Secretary by contacting her at (619) 670-2280. If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to participate in this meeting, please call the District Secretary at 670-2280 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Certification of Posting I certify that on March 15, 2013, I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District, said time being at least 24 hours in advance of the special meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Section §54954.2). Executed at Spring Valley, California on March 15, 2013. /s/ Susan Cruz, District Secretary STAFF REPORT TYPE MEETING: Special Board Meeting MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 SUBMITTED BY: Rita Bell, Finance Manager PROJECT: DIV. NO. All APPROVED BY: Joseph R. Beachem, Chief Financial Officer German Alvarez, Assistant General Manager Mark Watton, General Manager SUBJECT: Water and Sewer Rate Study Workshop GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION: This is a presentation of the rate study findings and a request to direct staff to incorporate the findings of this study into the FY 2014 rate model and budget. PURPOSE: To present to the Board the findings of the water and sewer rate study and request the Board to direct staff to incorporate the recommended changes into the FY 2014 rate model and budget. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2013, staff discussed the current cost of service study being performed. Then on February 6, 2013, the Board was informed of the changes being considered in this study. Now the findings and recommendations of this study are being brought forward for the Board’s consideration for incorporation into the FY 2014 rate model and budget. Typically, rate studies are performed every three to five years depending on changes in economic factors; price increases; water use patterns; regulations; infrastructure; and other cost driver changes. It has been four years since the District’s last water and sewer rate study. The cost of service study is an important tool when setting retail rates because as water use and cost drivers change over time, imbalances may occur in the equity of how various customer classes pay for water. With the significant amount of change in water usage over the past four years, the study was taken up prior to the five year threshold often used. Another factor to consider is the requirements of Proposition 218, whereby changes to the rate structure require a public hearing and procedures must be followed. Due to the requirement of going through AGENDA ITEM 5 the 218 process, numerous smaller changes that have been identified are held over for the next 218 process. The cost of service study is the opportunity to revisit the various issues identified and to perform a fresh look at the customer equity. Staff is requesting that the Board direct them to include the proposed rate structure changes so that they can be included in the FY 2014 rate model and proposed budget. After these changes are incorporated into the FY 2014 rate model and budget, staff will bring forward the proposed budget for adoption. With the proposed budget there will be proposed rates and “phase-in” options to be included in the Proposition 218 notices. Only after the Proposition 218 hearing may the Board approve the new rates. For the water cost of service study the following changes are being presented for Board direction: 1. Change water meter equivalencies to use the current AWWA hydraulic capacity factors for water customers. In 2010, the District updated its Capacity and Annexation Fees using the AWWA hydraulic capacity factors. Many agencies also use these industry standard capacity factors. This study recommends the use of these same factors in the application of system fees and MWD/CWA Fixed Fees. The use of consistent factors ensures that the fixed costs are allocated to customers based on this same factor. 2. Reset the break points for the tiers for customer types by meter size to adjust for current consumption patterns. This will ensure that all customer classes have consistent usage quantities in each tier. Due to changes in consumption by customers, the study findings conclude that the break point for Commercial/Public 10” meters and Landscape/Agriculture/Construction ¾” to 1” meters be increased to match the correct percentage of units flowing through each tier. At the same time, the study finds that the break point for Landscape/Agriculture/Construction 3” to 6” meters be lowered to match these same percentages. For recycled customers, the proposal is to decrease the break points for the ¾” to 1”, 1 ½” to 2” and 6” and greater, while the break point for the 3” to 4” need to be increased slightly to match consumption percentages in the tiers. 3. The finding in the areas for the classes of residential attached, mixed use master meter/irrigation and commercial/irrigation customers warranted no change to the existing rate structure. 4. The energy charge methodology was examined and it was determined that no change is recommended to the current method of charging customers for energy. 5. Propose the creation of a Recycled Commercial Rate for future customers. Today the District has approximately 700 recycled irrigation customers. The District anticipates up to four new recycled water customers that would be for commercial purposes. This rate is proposed to be set at 85% of the potable commercial rate, in accordance with the agreement with CWA for recycled credits. Implementing this change now will avoid a costly 218 notice and hearing at the time a new customer begins recycled water usage. 6. Updated the fire service fee to ensure equity among customers. Today the District charges a monthly fire service fee of $34.57 regardless of connection size. The cost associated with the maintenance, repair and replacement of this infrastructure was determined to be $21.14 for the 3” service size or less, and $28.41 for the 4” or larger service size. For the sewer cost of service study the following changes are being considered: 1. Eliminate the Assigned Service Unit (ASU) calculation for commercial accounts. This would include the creation of a system fee by water meter size and using the annual average water consumption for the usage charge. 2. Adjust commercial sewer strengths to current industry standards. 3. Ensure water meter equivalencies used for sewer base fees are consistent with AWWA water meter equivalencies. (See No. 1 above.) 4. For multi-residential, charge the system fee on meter size instead of the current ¾” system fee per dwelling unit. 5. Make the monthly base fee for Single-Family Residential (SFR) the same for both ¾” and 1" meters). 6. Eliminate the special formulas for schools and churches and move to an industry standard charge similar to commercial accounts. In addition to the changes being proposed in the water and sewer cost of service study, staff will be requesting the Board to consider an additional change. Since this change requires a Proposition 218 hearing it will be presented with the study findings. The change is to detach and attach Improvement Districts (ID) ID 25 to ID 20 and ID 19 to ID 22. The fees are identical for customers in the IDs being combined and would allow the District to eliminate two IDs that are no longer needed. This change would improve the efficiency of the accounting and administration currently required for these IDs. Staff is bringing forward findings of the rate study and requesting the Board to incorporate these changes into the FY 2014 rate model. In May of 2013, staff will request the Board to approve the budget and to move forward with the Proposition 218 process. Only after the Proposition 218 hearing is completed can the Board approve the rates and rate structure changes. FISCAL IMPACT: The recommendations in this study may change the water and sewer charges for individual customer types, but the overall change is financially neutral. STRATEGIC GOAL: The District ensures its continued financial health through sound policies and procedures. LEGAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: A) Presentation Attachment A 1 2 Reexamine the rate structure every 3 to 5 years ›Economic Factors, Price Increases (elasticity), Environmental Changes and Regulatory Changes Purpose ›Maintain equity between customer classes based on Cost of Service ›Financial stability (fixed vs. variable charges) ›Encourage conservation Tiered rate structure for water Strength and flow rate structure for sewer 3 Revenue Requirement Analysis Compares the sources of funds (revenue) to the expenses of the utility to determine the overall rate adjustment required Cost of Service Analysis Allocates the revenue requirements to the various customer classes of service in a "fair and equitable manner Rate Design Analysis Considers both the level and structure of the rate design to collect the target level of service 4 + Operations and Maintenance + Transfer Payments + Capital Projects Based on Rates = Total Revenue Requirement - Miscellaneous Revenues = Net Revenue Requirement from Rates 5 FUNCTIONALIZATION CLASSIFICATION ALLOCATION Total Revenue Req’ts. -Source of Supply -Treatment -Transmission -Distribution -General Admin. Capacity Related $ Commodity Related $ Customer Related $ Residential Multi-Family Comm./Gov’t. Residential Multi-Family Comm./Gov’t. Residential Multi-Family Comm./Gov’t. Residential Rate Multi-Family Commercial/ Gov’t Customer Related Costs – Billing, collections, meter maintenance, any costs that exists due to adding a customer Commodity Related Costs – Purchased water, power, and employee costs to provide potable water to customers Capacity Related Costs – Fixed costs such as debt service, MWD fixed charges, and actuarial pension obligations Less Non-Operating 6 7 Customer Type 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 8" 10" Total Single-Family Residential 43,701 794 15 4 44,514 Multi-Residential (18,523 Dwelling Units) 43 186 245 223 34 62 6 3 802 Commercial/Publically Owned 326 364 289 387 31 27 9 5 1,438 Landscaping & Agricultural 104 260 384 466 5 7 2 1 1,229 Temporary Construction 7 10 6 2 82 107 Total 44,181 1,614 939 1,082 70 178 17 3 6 48,090 8 Residential Attached ›Continue to bill under Single-Family Residential rate structure Mixed Use Multi-Residential and Commercial ›Continue to bill under current structure Energy Charges 9 Findings: ›Energy charges are allocated to pressure zones based on 100 feet of lift ›Assignment of zones and rate per lift are accurately assigned 10 Meter Equivalencies Adjust Tiers and Break Points Create Recycled Commercial Rate Update Fire Service Fee 11 Ensures Compliance with: ›AWWA hydraulic capacity factors (industry standards) ›Current capacity fee hydraulic factors ›Equitable payment for maintenance of system capacity Meter Size Current Meter Equivalency AWWA Meter Equivalency Current System Fee Recommended System Fee Change Current MWD/CWA Fee Recommended MWD/CWA Fee Change 5/8" 1.0 1.0 $16.74 $16.19 -$0.55 $13.28 $12.84 -$0.44 3/4" 1.0 1.5 $16.74 $16.19 -$0.55 $13.28 $12.84 -$0.44 1" 1.3 2.5 $21.26 $22.87 $1.61 $22.12 $23.80 $1.68 1 1/2" 1.9 5.0 $32.57 $39.58 $7.01 $44.31 $53.84 $9.53 2" 2.8 8.0 $46.13 $59.62 $13.49 $70.85 $91.57 $20.72 3" 4.9 16.0 $82.29 $113.08 $30.79 $141.71 $194.74 $53.03 4" 7.3 25.0 $122.99 $173.22 $50.23 $221.43 $311.87 $90.44 6" 14.1 50.0 $236.02 $340.29 $104.27 $442.80 $638.41 $195.61 8" 22.2 80.0 $371.64 $540.76 $169.12 $708.53 $1,030.95 $322.42 10" 31.7 115.0 $529.88 $774.64 $244.76 $1,015.06 $1,483.94 $468.88 12 Current Bill Proposed Bill 13 Ensure they match current consumption levels Ensure consistency among customer classes Retain tiers for commercial classes ›This allows the District to easily implement drought rates if necessary 14 Current Break Points Recommended Break Points Commercial and Publically Owned (<10" Meter) Commercial and Publically Owned (<10" Meter) Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 173 863,600 57% 0 185 855,678 56% 174 831 322,900 21% 186 1,400 408,952 27% 832+ 336,600 22% 1,401+ 258,740 17% Total 1,523,100 100% Total 1,523,100 100% Landscaping, Agricultural and Construction 3/4" to 1" Landscaping, Agricultural and Construction 3/4" to 1" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 49 108,300 52% 0 54 119,170 57% 50 132 51,700 25% 55 199 57,564 27% 133+ 49,400 24% 200+ 32,666 16% Total 209,400 100% Total 209,400 100% Landscaping, Agricultural and Construction 3 to 6" Landscaping, Agricultural and Construction 3 to 6" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 1044 56,100 66% 0 550 50,949 57% 1045 8067 29,400 34% 551 1,200 21,204 27% 8068+ - 0% 1,201+ 13,355 16% Total 85,500 100% Total 85,500 100% 15 Current Break Point Recommended Break Point Recycled 3/4" to 1" Recycled 3/4" to 1" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 42 32,600 64% 0 32 28,877 56% 43 97 13,600 26% 33 75 13,801 27% 98+ 5,200 10% 76+ 8,723 17% Total 51,400 100% Total 51,400 100% Recycled 1 1/2" to 2" Recycled 1 1/2" to 2" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 168 675,300 55% 0 130 703,920 57% 169 402 335,200 27% 131 325 340,024 27% 403+ 226,400 18% 326+ 192,956 16% Total 1,236,900 100% Total 1,236,900 100% Recycled 3" to 4" Recycled 3" to 4" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 403 41,500 43% 0 440 54,606 57% 404 820 23,300 24% 441 1,050 25,866 27% 821+ 31,000 32% 1,051+ 15,328 16% Total 95,800 100% Total 95,800 100% Recycled > 6" Recycled > 6" Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) % of Consumption 0 7,916 205,800 64% 0 4,000 182,172 57% 7,917 16,357 85,000 27% 4,001 10,000 86,292 27% 16,358+ 28,800 9% 10,001+ 51,136 16% Total 319,600 100% Total 319,600 100% 16 Anticipation of new commercial customers ›Power plant – 6” meter ›East Mesa Detention facility – 2” meter  conversion of irrigation, laundry, and toilet flushing ›Quarry operators - in planning stage, meter size unknown ›CCA, a private prison – 4” meter Ensures compliance with CWA Recycled Credits Agreement Encourages use of recycled water Ensures equity between user classes ›Peaking factor for indoor use is much lower than peaking factor for irrigation 17 Commercial Recycled Rates (<10" Meter) Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) Percent of Consumption Cum. Rate Differential Recommended Rate @ 85% 0 173 863,600 57% 0.0% $ 2.38 174 831 322,900 21% 3.0% $ 2.45 832+ 336,600 22% 4.0% $ 2.47 Total 1,523,100 100.0% Commercial Recycled Rates (>10" meter) Consumption Block Consumption (HCF) Percent of Consumption Cum. Rate Differential Recommended Rate @ 85% 0 7,426 179,900 57% 0.0% $ 2.38 7,427 14,616 86,400 27% 3.0% $ 2.45 14,617+ 51,500 16% 4.0% $ 2.47 Total 317,800 100.0% Established rates at 85% of commercial rates per contract with CWA. No history on break points, therefore, using commercial breakpoints until they can be established with consumption history. 18 Fire demands incorporated into the entire water system capacity serving all customers Will govern pipe size, sometimes storage capacity 19 Fire demands normally govern pipe size ›Single-Family Residential fire demand 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) ›Multi-Family 2,500 gpm ›Schools/Hospitals/Mixed Used 5,000 gpm 19 Wa t e r M a i n Water Service Lateral and Meter Private Fire Protection Lateral Ensures individual customers benefiting from the private fire protection pays for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the system. 21 M B M = Meter Customer Owned B = Backflow device District Owned Up to 3" 4“ or More Total Admin Cost $669.31 $22,692.97 $23,362.28 Depreciation $2,911.18 $156,989.63 $159,900.81 Valve Exercise $4,510.27 $4,510.27 Service Lateral Repairs $1,499.85 $50,851.95 $52,351.80 Service Lateral Maintenance $247.03 $8,375.58 $8,622.61 Total Cost of Fire Service $5,327.37 $243,420.40 $248,747.77 Number of Customers 21 712 733 Month Cost per Fire Service $21.14 $28.49 Proposed Annual Revenue $5,327.28 $243,418.56 $248,745.84 Current Annual Revenue $34.57 $34.57 $304,077.72 Change in Revenue -$55,331.88 22 23 $1,893,456 $358,656 $144,408 $52,416 $58,212 $149,280 $22,620 Current Sewer Revenue by Customer Type Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Low Strength Commerical Medium Strength Commercial High Strength Commerical Schools Churches 24 All customer types - adjust monthly fixed fees based on meter equivalency to match AWWA Single-Family Residential - make both ¾” and 1” monthly fixed fee the same Multi-Residential – charge system fee based on meter size Commercial – eliminate ASU calculation Commercial – update strength factors to State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) standard Churches and Schools – change methodology to match commercial customers 25 $2,099,880 $236,628 $98,604 $39,732 $34,656 $99,624 $13,848 Proposed Sewer Revenue by Customer Type Single-Family Residential Multi-Family Residential Low Strength Commerical Medium Strength Commercial High Strength Commerical Schools Churches 26 Residential 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" 3" 4" 6" 10" Total Single-Family 4,511 4,511 Multi-Family (1,360 dwelling units) 39 5 6 50 Commercial Schools 4 1 1 6 Churches 1 1 2 4 Low Strength 16 4 12 11 1 44 Medium Strength 4 4 5 0 13 High Strength 1 4 2 7 Total 4,511 22 5 20 63 6 6 1 1 4,636 27 Based on Cost of Service for this set of customers ›Maintain the “low” strength per SWRCB ›Maintain 85% of winter average for flow (January through April) ›Maintain cap of 30 units ›Make monthly base fee for ¾” and 1” single-family accounts the same Typical monthly bill increase of $4.20 or 11.6% due mainly to a more equitable allocation between customer classes Option of a “phase-in” of the increase in the system fee, so first year the increase in the monthly bill would be $2.97 or 8.2% 28 Current Bill Proposed Bill 29 Note: The actual average monthly bill increase is $3.81 or 10.9% because this chart does not reflect the reduction due to 1” meter system fee being combined with the ¾” system fee. FY2013 Current FY2013 Based on Updated COS Difference Average Winter Consumption after 85% (HCF) # of Customers Base Charge Consumption Charge Total Charge Base Charge Consumption Charge Total Charge Dollars % 1 38 $ 13.30 $ 1.92 $ 15.22 $ 14.53 $ 2.17 $ 16.69 $ 1.47 9.7% 2 89 $ 13.30 $ 3.84 $ 17.14 $ 14.53 $ 4.33 $ 18.86 $ 1.72 10.0% 3 148 $ 13.30 $ 5.76 $ 19.06 $ 14.53 $ 6.50 $ 21.02 $ 1.96 10.3% 4 168 $ 13.30 $ 7.68 $ 20.98 $ 14.53 $ 8.66 $ 23.19 $ 2.21 10.5% 5 201 $ 13.30 $ 9.60 $ 22.90 $ 14.53 $ 10.83 $ 25.36 $ 2.46 10.7% 6 239 $ 13.30 $ 11.52 $ 24.82 $ 14.53 $ 12.99 $ 27.52 $ 2.70 10.9% 7 280 $ 13.30 $ 13.44 $ 26.74 $ 14.53 $ 15.16 $ 29.69 $ 2.95 11.0% 8 278 $ 13.30 $ 15.36 $ 28.66 $ 14.53 $ 17.33 $ 31.85 $ 3.19 11.1% 9 288 $ 13.30 $ 17.28 $ 30.58 $ 14.53 $ 19.49 $ 34.02 $ 3.44 11.2% 10 255 $ 13.30 $ 19.20 $ 32.50 $ 14.53 $ 21.66 $ 36.18 $ 3.68 11.3% 11 230 $ 13.30 $ 21.12 $ 34.42 $ 14.53 $ 23.82 $ 38.35 $ 3.93 11.4% 12 249 $ 13.30 $ 23.04 $ 36.34 $ 14.53 $ 25.99 $ 40.52 $ 4.18 11.5% 13 190 $ 13.30 $ 24.96 $ 38.26 $ 14.53 $ 28.15 $ 42.68 $ 4.42 11.6% 14 180 $ 13.30 $ 26.88 $ 40.18 $ 14.53 $ 30.32 $ 44.85 $ 4.67 11.6% 15 205 $ 13.30 $ 28.80 $ 42.10 $ 14.53 $ 32.49 $ 47.01 $ 4.91 11.7% 16 166 $ 13.30 $ 30.72 $ 44.02 $ 14.53 $ 34.65 $ 49.18 $ 5.16 11.7% 17 120 $ 13.30 $ 32.64 $ 45.94 $ 14.53 $ 36.82 $ 51.35 $ 5.41 11.8% 18 135 $ 13.30 $ 34.56 $ 47.86 $ 14.53 $ 38.98 $ 53.51 $ 5.65 11.8% 19 130 $ 13.30 $ 36.48 $ 49.78 $ 14.53 $ 41.15 $ 55.68 $ 5.90 11.8% 20 103 $ 13.30 $ 38.40 $ 51.70 $ 14.53 $ 43.32 $ 57.84 $ 6.14 11.9% 21 86 $ 13.30 $ 40.32 $ 53.62 $ 14.53 $ 45.48 $ 60.01 $ 6.39 11.9% 22 80 $ 13.30 $ 42.24 $ 55.54 $ 14.53 $ 47.65 $ 62.17 $ 6.63 11.9% 23 66 $ 13.30 $ 44.16 $ 57.46 $ 14.53 $ 49.81 $ 64.34 $ 6.88 12.0% 24 53 $ 13.30 $ 46.08 $ 59.38 $ 14.53 $ 51.98 $ 66.51 $ 7.13 12.0% 25 54 $ 13.30 $ 48.00 $ 61.30 $ 14.53 $ 54.14 $ 68.67 $ 7.37 12.0% 26 42 $ 13.30 $ 49.92 $ 63.22 $ 14.53 $ 56.31 $ 70.84 $ 7.62 12.0% 27 37 $ 13.30 $ 51.84 $ 65.14 $ 14.53 $ 58.48 $ 73.00 $ 7.86 12.1% 28 43 $ 13.30 $ 53.76 $ 67.06 $ 14.53 $ 60.64 $ 75.17 $ 8.11 12.1% 29 26 $ 13.30 $ 55.68 $ 68.98 $ 14.53 $ 62.81 $ 77.33 $ 8.35 12.1% Cap 30 293 $ 13.30 $ 57.60 $ 70.90 $ 14.53 $ 64.97 $ 79.50 $ 8.60 12.1% 0 39 $ - $ - Total 4511 30 Based on Cost of Service for this set of customers ›Maintain the “low” strength per SWRCB ›Maintain 85% of winter average for flow (January through April) ›Charge system fee based on meter size instead of number of dwelling units 31 C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R E N C E Count Units Meter Size Monthly Water Average @85% Fixed Charge per DU Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 39 20 2 84.7 $13.30 $270.09 $1.92 $432.79 $97.24 $2.17 $280.76 -$152.03 -32.9% 5 78 3 357.6 $13.30 $1,037.40 $1.92 $1,724.04 $176.23 $2.17 $950.76 -$773.28 -46.2% 6 30 4 175.5 $13.30 $394.57 $1.92 $731.58 $289.07 $2.17 $669.22 -$62.36 -9.9% 50 1,360 6,146.1 $29,888.44 $19,718.91 $ (10,169.53) -34.02% 32 Update the commercial account methodology to current industry standards ›Eliminate the ASU calculation for commercial accounts (removing the floor for low water users) ›Create a system fee based on water meter size ›Maintain 85% of annual average water consumption for the usage charge ›Update sewer strength to State Water Resources Control Board factors 33 Current Industry Standard Low Strength 1.0 1.0 Medium Strength 1.3 2.0 High Strength 3.2 4.0 - 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 Low Strength Medium Strength High Strength Current Industry Standard 34 C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R EN C E Customer Name Meter Size Ave Annual Cons @ 85% ASU ASU Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 1 New Alternatives, Inc. 6.00 684.96 68.31 45.30 3,094.44 571.17 2.17 2,057.53 (1,036.91) -33.5% 2 Premiere Golf Properties 1.00 289.77 34.00 45.30 1,540.20 35.18 2.17 663.99 (876.21) -56.9% 3 Kaiser Foundation 2.00 167.17 20.64 45.30 934.99 97.24 2.17 459.99 (475.00) -50.8% 4 24 Hour Fitness 2.00 211.72 21.12 45.30 956.74 97.24 2.17 556.67 (400.07) -41.8% 5 State of California 2.00 186.58 18.61 45.30 843.03 97.24 2.17 502.11 (340.92) -40.4% 6 Tesoro Refining & Marketing 1.50 109.15 13.48 45.30 610.64 63.39 2.17 300.25 (310.39) -50.8% 7 Kindercare Learning 1.50 79.62 7.94 45.30 359.68 63.39 2.17 236.16 (123.52) -34.3% 8 San Diego CA PM Group 2.00 88.83 8.86 45.30 401.36 97.24 2.17 289.99 (111.37) -27.7% 9 Rancho SD Shopping Ctr 1.50 45.26 5.59 45.30 253.23 63.39 2.17 161.61 (91.62) -36.2% 10 Children's World 1.50 59.85 5.97 45.30 270.44 63.39 2.17 193.27 (77.17) -28.5% 11 Ram Centers LLC 1.00 42.71 4.26 45.30 192.98 35.18 2.17 127.87 (65.11) -33.7% 12 Premiere Golf Properties 0.75 37.61 3.75 45.30 169.88 23.89 2.17 105.51 (64.37) -37.9% 13 Singing Hills Animal Hospital 0.75 30.10 3.00 45.30 135.90 23.89 2.17 89.22 (46.68) -34.3% 14 Southland Corp Store #13664 0.75 15.58 1.92 45.30 86.98 23.89 2.17 57.71 (29.27) -33.6% 15 El Cajon Center, Inc. 1.50 25.93 3.20 45.30 144.96 63.39 2.17 119.65 (25.31) -17.5% 16 Steele Canyon Golf Club 0.75 - 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 23.89 (21.41) -47.3% 17 North Island Financial Credit Union 0.75 0.07 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 24.04 (21.26) -46.9% 18 West FSB Citibank 1.00 23.80 2.37 45.30 107.36 35.18 2.17 86.83 (20.53) -19.1% 19 Ella Davis 0.75 2.34 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 28.96 (16.34) -36.1% 20 Poole Family Trust 0.75 3.33 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 31.11 (14.19) -31.3% 21 Ranch HOA Hillsdale 0.75 16.29 1.62 45.30 73.39 23.89 2.17 59.24 (14.15) -19.3% 22 Steele Canyon Golf 0.75 4.25 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 33.11 (12.19) -26.9% 23 Ella Davis 0.75 5.03 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 34.80 (10.50) -23.2% 24 Ranch HOA Hillsdale 0.75 6.45 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 37.88 (7.42) -16.4% 25 San Diego County 1.50 29.54 2.95 45.30 133.64 63.39 2.17 127.49 (6.15) -4.6% 26 Partners Data System 0.75 7.30 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 39.72 (5.58) -12.3% 27 County of San Diego (Park) 1.50 28.48 2.84 45.30 128.65 63.39 2.17 125.18 (3.47) -2.7% 28 RSD Hilton Head 1.50 28.40 2.83 45.30 128.20 63.39 2.17 125.03 (3.17) -2.5% 29 Scripps Clinic 2.00 42.71 4.26 45.30 192.98 97.24 2.17 189.93 (3.05) -1.6% 30 W. Village Singing Hills 0.75 8.57 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 42.49 (2.81) -6.2% 31 7-eleven 1.00 11.05 1.36 45.30 61.61 35.18 2.17 59.16 (2.45) -4.0% 32 Monarch Ridge 0.75 9.28 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 2.17 44.03 (1.27) -2.8% 33 California Bank & Trust 0.75 10.77 1.07 45.30 48.47 23.89 2.17 47.25 (1.22) -2.5% 34 Garden Water Conservation 1.00 6.23 1.00 45.30 45.30 35.18 2.17 48.71 3.41 7.5% 35 Rancho SD Shopping Ctr 2.00 37.47 3.74 45.30 169.42 97.24 2.17 178.55 9.13 5.4% 36 CA Truck School 1.50 3.12 1.00 45.30 45.30 63.39 2.17 70.15 24.85 54.9% 37 Blockbuster 1.50 6.80 1.00 45.30 45.30 63.39 2.17 78.15 32.85 72.5% 38 El Cajon Center, Inc. 1.50 8.43 1.04 45.30 47.11 63.39 2.17 81.68 34.57 73.4% 39 Probuild Holdings 1.50 8.71 1.00 45.30 45.30 63.39 2.17 82.30 37.00 81.7% 40 Ram Centers LLC 2.00 19.69 1.96 45.30 88.79 97.24 2.17 139.97 51.18 57.6% 41 Longs Drugs 2.00 19.41 1.94 45.30 87.88 97.24 2.17 139.36 51.48 58.6% 42 Avalon II Califonia IV LP 2.00 0.28 1.00 45.30 45.30 97.24 2.17 97.85 52.55 116.0% 43 Avalon II Califonia IV LP 2.00 0.92 1.00 45.30 45.30 97.24 2.17 99.24 53.94 119.1% 44 Ram Centers LLC 2.00 10.27 1.02 45.30 46.21 97.24 2.17 119.53 73.32 158.7% 2,433.83 265.65 12,033.95 2,935.74 8,217.16 (3,816.79) -31.7% C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R E N C E Customer Name Meter Size Avg Annual Cons @ 85% ASU ASU Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 1 Sycuan Resort 1.50 426.14 50.00 45.30 2,265.00 63.39 3.12 1,392.94 (872.06) -38.5% 2 Tesoro Refining & Marketing 2.00 57.38 7.08 45.30 320.72 97.24 3.12 276.25 (44.47) -13.9% 3 El Cajon Center, Inc. 1.50 41.72 5.15 45.30 233.30 63.39 3.12 193.56 (39.74) -17.0% 4 Robert L. Payne 2.00 55.18 6.81 45.30 308.49 97.24 3.12 269.40 (39.09) -12.7% 5 Aspen Gold LP 2.00 55.11 6.80 45.30 308.04 97.24 3.12 269.18 (38.86) -12.6% 6 Gold Coast Holdings SD 0.75 0.28 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 3.12 24.77 (20.53) -45.3% 7 Kelly Auto Works Inc 0.75 0.35 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 3.12 25.00 (20.30) -44.8% 8 Kelly Auto Works Inc 0.75 0.35 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 3.12 25.00 (20.30) -44.8% 9 Jamacha Junction, Inc 0.75 1.20 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 3.12 27.65 (17.65) -39.0% 10 Kroeger Family Prop. 1.50 29.11 3.59 45.30 162.63 63.39 3.12 154.22 (8.41) -5.2% 11 Rancho SD Shopping Ctr 2.00 60.56 6.04 45.30 273.61 97.24 3.12 286.20 12.59 4.6% 12 Aspen Gold LP 1.50 15.58 1.92 45.30 86.98 63.39 3.12 112.01 25.03 28.8% 13 Rancho SD Shopping Ctr 2.00 50.58 5.04 45.30 228.31 97.24 3.12 255.03 26.72 11.7% 793.55 96.43 4,368.28 835.32 40.56 3,311.21 (1,057.07) -24.2% 36 C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R E N C E Customer Name Meter Size Avg Annual Cons @ 85% ASU ASU Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 1 Vons 2.00 198.33 43.58 45.30 1,974.17 97.24 4.97 1,082.96 (891.21) -45.1% 2 Savanna Grill 1.50 73.31 16.11 45.30 729.78 63.39 4.97 427.75 (302.03) -41.4% 3 Hot Cakes, Inc (IHOP) 1.50 60.85 13.37 45.30 605.66 63.39 4.97 365.79 (239.87) -39.6% 4 Worldwide LLC 1.50 59.71 13.12 45.30 594.34 63.39 4.97 360.16 (234.18) -39.4% 5 QSC Foods 1.50 48.52 10.66 45.30 482.90 63.39 4.97 304.54 (178.36) -36.9% 6 Steele Canyon Golf Clubhouse 2.00 42.08 9.24 45.30 418.57 97.24 4.97 306.35 (112.22) -26.8% 7 Michael Poole 0.75 3.33 1.00 45.30 45.30 23.89 4.97 40.44 (4.86) -10.7% Total - Commercial High 486.13 4,850.72 471.93 2,887.99 (1,962.73) -40.5% 37 Eliminate the special formulas for schools and churches based on attendance Use Industry Standard Method ›Uses commercial low strength as the formula System fee based on meter size 85% of average annual water usage times the usage rate Brings structure into current industry standard 38 C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R E N C E Customer Name Meter Size Avg Annual Cons @ 85% ASU ASU Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 1 Valhalla High School 3.00 355.30 88.00 45.30 3,986.40 176.23 2.17 947.23 (3,039.17) -76.2% 2 Cuyamaca College 10.00 2,176.00 147.35 45.30 6,674.96 1,304.64 2.17 6,026.56 (648.39) -9.7% 3 Grossmont Union HS District 2.00 88.40 11.76 45.30 532.73 97.24 2.17 289.07 (243.66) -45.7% 4 Grossmont Union HS District 2.00 79.90 10.70 45.30 484.71 97.24 2.17 270.62 (214.09) -44.2% 5 Cajon Valley School District 2.00 82.45 7.98 45.30 361.49 97.24 2.17 276.16 (85.33) -23.6% 6 Cajon Valley School District 2.00 181.90 8.82 45.30 399.36 97.24 2.17 491.96 92.60 23.2% Total - Schools 2,963.95 274.61 12,439.65 1,869.83 8,301.60 (4,138.05) -33.3% 39 C U R R E N T P R O P O S E D D I F F E R E N C E Customer Name Meter Size Avg Annual Cons @ 85% ASU ASU Rate Monthly Bill Fixed Charge Commodity Rate Monthly Bill Dollar % 1 St. Peters Chaldean Church 1.00 198.9 19.87 45.30 900.11 35.18 2.17 466.79 -433.32 -48.1% 2 Sisters Chaldean 2.00 186.15 18.56 45.30 840.77 97.24 2.17 501.19 -339.58 -40.4% 3 Foothills Methodist Church 0.75 22.1 2.19 45.30 99.21 23.89 2.17 71.85 -27.36 -27.6% 4 Church of St. Luke 2.00 7.65 1.00 45.30 45.30 97.24 2.17 113.84 68.54 151.3% Total - Churches 414.80 41.62 1,885.39 253.55 1,153.67 (731.72) -38.81% 40 User Group No. of Accounts Current Monthly Bill Proposed Monthly Bill Monthly Difference Annual Difference Percent Single-Family 4,511 $157,788 $174,990 $17,202 $206,424 10.9% Multi-Family (1,360 dwelling units) 50 $29,888 $19,719 -$10,169 -$122,028 -34.0% Commercial Schools 6 $12,440 $8,302 -$4,138 -$49,656 -33.3% Churches 4 $1,885 $1,154 -$731 -$8,772 -38.8% Low Strength 44 $12,034 $8,217 -$3,817 -$45,804 -31.7% Medium Strength 13 $4,368 $3,311 -$1,057 -$12,684 -24.2% High Strength 7 $4,851 $2,888 -$1,963 -$23,556 -40.5% 41 Implement immediately or phase-in increase in fixed charge over 2 years ›Rate increase would be $2.97 or 8.2% instead of $4.20 or 11.6% ›The Proposition 218 notice would be more complex with a phase-in 42 Current Bill Phase-in Bill 43 44 Detach and attach Improvement District (ID) 25 to ID 20 and ID 19 to ID 22 ›No purpose to retain these IDs ›The fees are identical for these customers ›This allows the District to eliminate two IDs ›Proposition 218 required to make this change 45 46 47 48