Apr 2016 Board Packet - Atascadero Mutual Water Company

Transcription

AGENDA
ATASCADERO MUTUAL WATER COMPANY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
April 13, 2016, 5:30 P.M.
5005 El Camino Real
Atascadero, California
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The Board invites members of the general public in attendance at the meeting to address
any subject that is not on the agenda. If they wish to address an item that is on the agenda, the
Board will consider their comments at the time the agenda item is discussed.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
March 9, 2016 - Regular meeting
Pages
1-4
Pages
Pages
Pages
Pages
Pages
5-8
9-24
25-26
27-29
30-48
Pages
49-63
Pages
Pages
Page
64-82
83-86
87
REPORTS:
Operations Report
Financial Report
Conservation Manager's Report
General Manager's Report
Correspondence & News Articles
OLD BUSINESS:
Water Rate Adjustment (Action)
NEW BUSINESS:
FY 2017 Budget (Action)
Monterey County Basin Boundary Modification (Action)
Appointment of Annual Meeting Election Inspectors (Action)
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
Status Update, Steinbeck Quiet Title Action
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
March 9, 2016
The meeting convened at the office of Atascadero Mutual Water Company, 5005 El Camino
Real, Atascadero, at 5:30 p.m., President Frank Platz presiding. Others present were Vice President
Brien Vierra, Directors Robert Jones and Jackie Lerno, General Manager John Neil, and Secretary
Cheryl Powers. Director Leroy Davis was absent.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There was no public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 10,
2016; the motion carried 4 to 0.
The following reports were reviewed:
OPERATIONS REPORT:
The Operations reports were available for review. The Chief Operator reported that well levels
have come up, and NWP water will likely not be needed this summer if the rains continue. He also
provided status updates on well maintenance.
FINANCIAL REPORT:
The financial reports for January were available for review. Operating revenue is much lower
than projected. Plant expenses are approximately 7% lower than projections.
CONSERVATION REPORT:
The Conservation Manager's report was available for review. The Conservation Manager spoke
about recent workshops, including a Juan Bautista de Anza Trail meeting conducted by a National Park
Service Ranger, and provided updates on the conservation and outreach programs.
She also reported that she recently attended a joint meeting with Santa Barbara County water
conservation staff, where she learned of upcoming State mandates, such as monthly leak detection
audits. The Secretary of Water Efficiency of the DWR was in attendance, and AMWC's Conservation
Manager requested leniency for AMWC with regard to the mandated 28% reduction in water use.
Information regarding how many rebates are being given by the State in AMWC's service area was also
requested.
The General Manager's Report was available/or review as follows:
RAINFALL:
Total rainfall for the period of July 1 - February 29 was 10.96". The long-term average rainfall
for the period of July 1 - February 29 is 12.96".
4/16
1
Minutes -Atascadero Mutual Water Company
03/09/16
WATER PRODUCTION:
Water production was down 10.7% in February compared with the same month in 2013. Staff is
not sure how the State will address AMWC not meeting the reduction mandates.
NACIMIENTO WATER PROJECT (NWP):
On February 26, the lake was at 22% capacity with 84,800 acre-feet (af) of storage, up from
83,120 af on February 1. Lake releases averaged 119 af/day during January. The Lake level is up
16,000 af after the rains last week-end.
WELL LEVELS:
The static water level in Well 11 has risen to 34.4 feet below ground surface (BGS), up from
42.0 feet BGS on February 1.
NEXT MEETING DATE AND TIME:
The next regular meeting is tentatively scheduled for April 13, 2016, at 5:30 p.m.
WATER USE RATES:
The General Manager explained that this is a continuation of the discussions the Board has been
having for the past several months. He again explained the need for the rate adjustment and presented
options for achieving the net 15% increase needed to keep the water system in good operating order and
to be prepared for emergencies.
The Board asked for any public comment, and the idea of cutting staff and wages was presented
by an attendee. The General Manager responded with information regarding AMWC's reduction in
staffing over the past ten years and other water agencies' staffing levels and salaries. Questions about
who AMWC subcontracts with to do excavating work were also addressed. It was suggested that
AMWC include a bill insert to let shareholders know what AMWC has done/is doing to keep water rates
low, and the reasons an increase it necessary so it is better understood and accepted.
The General Manager reported that the State may consider making adjustments to mandates
based on climate, population growth, and drought resiliency, and that AMWC has applied on the basis
of the NWP as a drought resiliency measure that AMWC has taken-the state has not yet responded.
He also reported that AMWC will have an adequate water supply this year, even without NWP water,
due to water use decreasing over the past 15 years.
Someone asked ifNWP water could be sold to generate revenue, and the General Manager
explained that it can, but it is very expensive to purchase because it has to include the cost of the debt
service. If the NWP participants are able to acquire the additional delivery entitlement they are seeking,
the surplus water of the project could be sold for approximately $450/af instead of $1,400/af, which may
make it more attractive to potential buyers, but there is still the issue of delivering it.
There was discussion about deferring capital improvement projects, and the General Manager
explained that AMWC coordinates as much work as it can with the City's street overlay program to save
money, to avoid cutting newly repaved streets, and to replace water appurtenances that may be damaged
during the overlay process. He also gave examples of other methods AMWC employs to use
shareholder funds efficiently and stressed the importance of properly maintaining the system.
2
4/16
2
03/09/16
Minutes - Atascadero Mutual Water Company
The General Manager reiterated that the current base rate is not high enough to cover the cost
associated with the service being provided. The Board indicated it would like to see either an increase
to the base rate with a slight adjustment to the tier rates, or a combination of an increase to the base and
tier rates and a drought surcharge that could be removed if water use increases to the point that revenue
is stabilized.
NWP RESERVE CAPACITY WATER ALLOCATION:
The General Manager explained that the initial participants of the NWP have agreed to distribute
the reserve capacity water from the NWP among each other, and have submitted an application to the
County of San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District to acquire the additional
delivery entitlement. If the District accepts the amendment to the contract, it will no longer have to pay
any portion of the ad valorem taxes, which will increase the participants' annual debt service payments for AMWC, this would be approximately $225,000. However, it will increase AMWC's entitlement
share from 2,000 afy to 3,244 afy, and staff believes it is an excellent opportunity to secure additional
water.
A motion was made and seconded to approve Amendment No. 3 to the Nacimiento Water
Delivery Entitlement contract that is in substantial conformance with Attachment B of the agenda item,
and authorize the President and Secretary to execute the documents necessary for the amendment; the
motion carried 4 to 0.
DWR BASIN BOUNDARY MODIFICATION APPLICATION:
The General Manager provided background regarding the Atascadero Basin being included in
the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) Bulletin 118 boundary of the Paso Robles Groundwater
Basin. Due to the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the prope1ty
owners overlying the Atascadero Basin, AMWC, and Templeton Community Services District are
collaborating to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Agency in compliance with SGMA, and they
wish to submit a request to the DWR to revise the boundaries of the Paso Robles Basin to formally
identify the Atascadero Basin as a separate basin. The request would be made by the Templeton
Community Services District.
A motion was made and seconded to adopt a resolution supporting the filing of a basin boundary
modification application to the Department of Water Resources by Templeton Community Services
District, in substantial conformance with Attachment A of the agenda item; the motion carried 4 to 0.
FY 2017 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS:
The General Manager reviewed the budget assumptions for fiscal year ending April 30, 2017.
He explained that he will be using conservative revenue estimates, and he reviewed the anticipated
expenditures and discussed the pared-down capital investments planned for the fiscal year.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:13 p.m.
Cheryl J. Powers, Secretary
3
4/16
3
Minutes - Atascadero Mutual Water Company
03/09/16
APPROVED:
The undersigned directors of the Company approve the foregoing minutes of directors and acknowledge
notice of the meeting or, if notice was not properly given, waive notice of the meeting.
D. Frank Platz, President
Robert M. Jones, Director
Brien C. Vierra, Vice-President
Jackie M. Lerno, Director
Leroy R. Davis, Director
4
4/16
4
03/31/16
WELL REPORT
1000
23 = MILLION GALLONS PUMPED
900
--
.Q.
800
1--
700
LU
.!!.
......
II
-
400
•
z
300
II
11
•
11
11
II
11
15
6
I!
II
•
4
II
II
0..
0
19
11
II
(f)
...J
...J
,__
11
II
500
~
0:::
II
II
II
II
LU
z
I
,__
II
600
:::>
C COMBINED PUMP RATES
22
......
II
II
I-
C INDIVIDUAL PUMP RATE
II
II
11
11
11
II
11
<(
<.9
11
II
II
J
11
200
II
II
II
II
II
II
100
II
II
11
11
1:
II
II
11
0
N
......
...J
...J
<(
co
...J
...J
t...J
...J
LU
LO
N
...J
...J
s s s s
LU
LU
LU
co
N
_J
_J
~
<(
O>
...J
...J
~
TOTAL PRODUCTION CAPABILITY 13.702
0
O>
......
......
_J
_J
...J
...J
~
"""
...J
...J
LU
co
......
_J
_J
c:o
......
<(
LO
("")
<(
N
...J
...J
...J
...J
_J
_J
...J
...J
LU
<(
<(
LO
co
_J
_J
_J
_J
LU
LU
<(
("")
......
...J
...J
s s s s s s s s s s
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
MGD (TOTAL OF COMB INED PUMP RATES IF OPERATED 24/7)
SHALLOW WELL FIELDc==]
DEEP WELL FIELDc==J
COMBINED PUMP RATES: THE CURRENT PUMP RATE CAPACITY OF A WELL ASSUMING THAT WELL AND ADJOINING
WELLS HAVE BEEN PUMPING AT THEIR OPTIMUM RATE FOR THE PAST 30 DAYS (OPTIMUM MEANS NOT
PUMPING BELOW PERFORATIONS, WITHIN SAND SEPARATOR SPECS, AND REASONABLE PUMP EFFICIENCY)
INDIVIDUAL WELL PUMP RATES :
THE CURRENT PUMP RATE CAPACITY OF A WELL ASSUMING THAT THE WELL HAS
BEEN PUMPING AT ITS OPTIMUM RATE FOR THE PAST 30 DAYS BUT ADJOINING WELLS ARE NOT BEING
PUMPED.
4/16
s
LU
OPERATIONS STATUS
FYE 04/30/16
FIRE HYDRANTS MAINTAINED
SERVICES INSTALLED
90
85
80
75
~
_..,._ SERVI CES
II
- - GOAL
70
65
(f)
lJ.J
()
~
lJ.J
(f)
u.
0
0:::
z
45
40
,,__..
35
30
2
25
z
20
::i
f-
~
0
>J:
50
lJ.J
ca
(f)
60
55
0:::
lJ.J
ca
2
~
::i
z
,./
10
0
u.
0
/
15
5
~
-
...------
~
I
.,c:
,.,
"'
...,::J
::;:
r
,.,
~
"'
::J
<(
ii
"
(/)
ti
0
>
0
z
u
0
"
c
~
.0
"
u..
li;
::;:
a
550
525
500
475
450
425
400
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
<(
g
-
/
~
(f)
f-
z
~
>J:
0
u.
0
0:::
lJ.J
ca
2
::i
z
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
~
FH
../
r-
(f)
0:::
lJ.J
flJ.J
_,,r
_,,--
I
r-
- --
.~
_,,.,
-
_/
-
2
u.
r
0
0:::
lJ.J
ca
2
::i
z
.I
-
,., c
::;:"'
...,"
::J
,.,
~
"'
::J
<(
ii
"
(/)
ti
0
>
0
z
u
0
c:
" ...,"'
J'
-
....
~
J"
/
...
,./
~
,., c
"' ...,"
::J
,.,
"' a.
"
~
::J
<(
u
0
>
ti
0
c
~
"
z
0
(/)
.0
li;
"
::;:
u..
~
METER REPLACEMENT
I
I
- - GOAL
*
?
::;:
20
-
I
I
/
FIRE HYDRANT UPGRADES
19
18
17
16
15
FH
- - GOAL
.0
"
u..
li;
::;:
a
<(
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
~
~ f.1ETER S
I
I
- - GOAL
)J
n
/
[J
rr
/
0
I
I
r{
/
j._J
r('
/
rr
n
I
/
cf
,., c:
"' ~"
:;:
,.,
~
"'
::J
<(
ii
Ql
(/)
ti
0
zi5
u
Ql
0
c
~
NOTE: Goals are for FYE 04/30/16 budget
OTHER NOTES:
4/16
6
.0
Ql
u..
li;
:;:
a
<(
March 2016
11 .5 mil.
10.5 mil.
9.5 mil.
>
<(
c
0::::
w
a..
c
w
8.5 mil.
7.5 mil.
a..
~
::::>
a..
en
z
6.5mil.
0
..J
..J
<(
(!)
5.5 mil.
4.5 mil.
3.5 mil.
2.5 mil.
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
DAYS
I -+- DAILY
-
4/16
4 DAY AVG
7
I
2016 PRODUCTION VS. 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and Projected
en
z
g
~
z
(!)
0
::i
...J
:iE
350
340
330
320
310
300
290
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90 ..._
80 ..70
60
50
40
...
..'.
~
~
.........
.....
O"I
JAN.
_A
~
~~
,,.__...---/
/
/
v
/
/
/
/
~
-
"-..
~~
.......
/
#
"'
---...... .............._
-............_
Ir
.t"
/
"-..
~
/ _.-'
/
-..........
//
__,_,,,-
...
-
.
~
.
-
...............~"\.
' ~
~ ~.-
, ____
l/T//
...
FEB.
/ -.IJ ~ ~
~
-
~
' "\."\.
" "\."\.
~
-"' ~' " ~---~'~
.,..... ""'
--o
, ,.......___.............._" "'
..
MAR.
-
"\."'\......
~
~ /~~
"""-.
~
'\.~
-= -
APR.
MAY
JUN .
JUL.
AUG .
SEPT.
OCT.
00
__.._ 2012 ACTUAL PRODUCTION
__.,_ 2014 ACTUAL PRODUCTION
~ 2016 ACTUAL PRODUCTION
--+- 2013 ACTUAL PRODUCTION
_..,_ 2015 ACTUAL PRODUCTION
- • · • 2016 PROJECTED PRODUCTION
NOV.
.
-'
~
DEC.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS OF 2/29/16
ACCT.
BALANCE SHEET
CASH IN SANTA LUCIA NATIONAL BANK (CHECKING)
CASH IN SANTA LUCIA NATIONAL BANK (SAVINGS)
CASH IN BANK
11101
11110
$88,224.46
$10,438.00
$98,662.46
$88,224.46
$10,438.00
$98,662.46
PETTY CASH FUND
11105
$600.00
$600.00
E. JONES - CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
E. JONES - CASH & MONEY MARKET
FUNDS IN TRANSIT
WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNT
E. JONES - CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
E. JONES - CASH & MONEY MARKET
FUNDS IN TRANSIT
INVESTMENT ACCOUNT
$
$
4,468,000.00
849,448.87
$75,074.85
$5,392,523.72
$ 4,463,471.78
$ 849,448.87
$75,074.85
$5,387 ,995.50
$
$
1,885,000.00
109,634.75
$ 1,883,497.37
$ 109,634.75
$1,994,634.75
$1,993,132.12
$7 ,486,420.93
$7 ,480,390.08
11115
11120
TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS
WATER
MISCELLANEOUS
CURRENT VALUE
12101
12125
TOTAL ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
$425,782.22
$4,256.86
$430,039.08
SAMPLE OF CURRENT CD AND SECURITIES RATES:
Edward Jones
3/8/2016
TERM
13-WK TBILL
26cWK
2-YRT NOTE
3-MO CD
6-MO CD
1-YR CD
2-YRCD
Current Month
0.315% (3/10/16)
0.475% (3/10/16)
0.750% (2/29/16)
Last Month
0.315% (2/11/16)
0.420% (2/11/16)
0.750% (2/01/16)
0.40%
0.45%
0.65%
1.10%
AMOUNTS MATURING BY QUARTER {Investment & CaQital Accounts)
BREAKDOWN BY ACCOUNT
INVSTMT
WRDR
TOTAL
Cash/MM 1st/2016
$110K
$OK
$849K $248K
$959K
$248K
2nd/2016
$1,141K
$2,484K
3rd/2016
$OK
$248K
4th/2016
$744K
$248K
1st/2017
$OK
$OK
2nd/2017
$OK
$1,240K
3rd/2017+
$OK
$OK
$3,625K
$248K
$992K
$OK
$1,240K
$OK
4/16
9
Atascadero Mutual Water Company
Income Statement
For the Period Ending Monday, February 29,2016
Prior Fiscal YTD
Current Fiscal YTD
Description
Revenue
(5,928,661)
(62,071}
(16,440)
(149,618)
(25,230)
(6,232)
(38,775)
(5,089,034)
(63,553)
(2,062)
(131,548)
(18,609)
(8,819)
{28,055)
(2,750)
(1,705,700)
{260,431)
(13,678)
(7,324,240)
(2,329,775)
(257,504)
(5,082)
(8,819,388}
Total
333,778
(22,492)
97,184
2,085
9,993
3,286
137,398
10,962
60,695
619,935
1,252,824
312,276
(54,300)
97,255
1,629
10,975
5,711
126,232
10,773
72,330
706,717
1,289,598
Total
654,494
(169,690)
202,499
13,694
17,946
4,640
304,830
8,339
46,081
1,082,832
642,061
(182,052)
208,691
11,925
20,478
3,310
282,103
3,344
45,722
1,035,581
2,335,656
2,325,179
Operating Revenue-Water Sales
Operating Revenue-Service Chgs
Misc Operating Income
Rental Income
Service Income
Interest Income
Meter Installation Fees
Gain on Sales Equip-Land
Connection Fees (WRD)
Nacimiento Surcharge Fees (WRD)
Interest Income (WRD)
Total Revenue
Plant Operations Expense
Production & Treatment
Employee salaries & wages
Capitalized wages & benefits
Employee benefits
Other employee expense
Insurance
Utility charges
Repairs and Maintenance
Outside services
Other expense
Variable energy, chemicals
Transmission & Distribution
Employee benefits
Insurance
Utility charges
Outside services
Other expense
Total Plant Operations Expenses
4/16
10
Income Statement
For the Period Ending Monday, February 29,2016
Non-Plant Expense
Office
Total
543,722
(3,258)
117,797
4,419
16,671
9,030
54,563
25,145
231,220
69,205
92,390
1,160,905
Total
49,534
3,781
474
2,271
325
2,848
615
62,147
25,347
4,972
152,314
38,704
2,520
176
2,543
229
1,882
279
25,033
19,181
5,112
95,658
1,313,219
1,243,219
11,614
25,899
1,458,001
39,774
Total Non-Operating Expense
12,750
26,985
2,816,676
283,124
19,475
1,034,221
4,193,231
960,616
2,495,904
Revenue Total
Expense Total
Net Profit/Loss
7,324,240
7,842,106
(517,866)
8,819,388
6,064,302
2,755,086
Employee benefits
Insurance
Utility charges
Property Taxes
Outside services
Other expense
Other office expense
526,367
(9,203)
119,592
3,833
17,687
8,404
49,166
33,503
237,791
67,944
92,476
1,147,561
Conservation
Employee benefits
Insurance
Utility charges
Outside services
Conservation program & rebates
Other expense
Total Non-Plant Operations Expenses
Non-Operating Expense
Income Tax Expense
Non-operating expense
NacmientoWater Project
Steinbeck Quiet Title Action
SGMA Compliance
Depreciation Expense
4/16
11
w.zo
Account Holder(s) Atascadero Mutual Water Co
Account Number 854-08377-1-6
Account Type Corporate
Financial Advisor Austin B. Cunningham, 805-466-2348
7560 Morro Road, Atascadero, CA 93422, 888-466-2348
Statement Date Feb 27 - Mar 24, 2016
Corporate Account
Page 1 of 8
Three Steps to Consider Before April 18
Atascadero Mutual Water Co
April 18 is right around the corner. Here are three things to consider
before the tax deadline arrives. Get organized - Many people
underestimate the time it takes to organize their tax records. Make
your 2015 IRA contribution - Use this tax-advantaged savings
opportunity to contribute the maximum amount to your IRA. Consider
filing electronically - If you expect a tax refund, filing electronically
can mean getting your refund three to six weeks earlier than filing by
mail.
Account Value
Value of~our Account (in OOOs)
,
$7,510
$5,390,658.30
$6,120
~
$4,730
1 Month Ago
$5,312,920.65
$3,340
1 Year Ago
$5,300,049.65
$1,950
3 Years Ago
$3, 153,667 .04
5 Years Ago
$5,866,387.54
Jun
2014
Sep
Dec
Mar
2015
Jun
----=--Sep
Dec
Mar
2016
"
Value Summary
"
Beginning Value
Assets Added to Account
Income
Assets Withdrawn from Account
Fees and Charges
Change In Value
I Ending Value
This Period
This Year
$5,312,920.65
$5,218, 181.64
$75,074.85
$159,947.86
$1,722.23
$3,019.47
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$940.57
$9,509.33
I
$5,390,658.30
4/16
12
Page3 of 8
Estimated Interest and Dividends by Month (continued)
Month
Not Reinvested
Reinvested
Total
March
299
0
299
$16,525
$0
$16,525
Total
""
/
~
""
Estimated Interest and E>i'victen~sJ~y Secu!ity
April
2016
May
2016
3 Months 3 Months
Ending
Ending
June September December
2016
2016
2016
3 Months
Ending
March
2017
12 Month
Total
Certificates of Deposit
Quantity
Ally Bank CD 0.6500%
248,000
$0
$806
$0
$0
$0
$0
$806
American Express Centurion C
0.9000%
248,000
0
1, 116
0
0
1, 116
0
2,232
Brno Harris Bk National Assn
0.4500%
248,000
0
0
0
837
0
0
837
Capital One CD 0.8500%
248,000
0
1,054
0
0
1,054
0
2, 108
Capital One Bank USA CD 0.6500%
248,000
0
806
0
0
0
0
806
Centennial Bank CD 0.4000%
249,000
83
0
0
0
0
0
83
Discover Bank CD 0.6500%
248,000
0
806
0
0
0
0
806
Goldman Sachs Bank CD 0.6500%
248,000
0
806
0
0
0
0
806
Home Exchange Bank CD 0.4500%
248,000
93
93
93
0
0
0
279
Lubbock National Bank CD
0.4000%
248,000
82
82
82
0
0
0
246
MB Financial Bank Na CD
0.3500%
249,000
72
0
0
0
0
0
72
Mizuho Bank CD 0.4000%
249,000
998
0
0
0
0
0
998
Peoples Bank of Alabama CD
0.7000%
248,000
144
144
144
432
432
432
1,728
Peoples United Bank CD 0.4000%
249,000
998
0
0
0
0
0
998
TCF National Bank CD 0.7500%
248,000
0
930
0
0
930
0
1,860
Venture Bank CD 0.7500%
248,000
155
155
155
465
465
465
1,860
$2,625
$6,798
$474
$1,734
$3,997
$897
$16,525
Total
4/16
13
Page 5 of 8
Asset Details (continued)
Maturity
Date
Maturity
Value
Amount
Invested
Since Inception
Peoples United Bank
DTD 04/15/2015 F/C 04/15/2016
FDIC Insured to Legal Limits
Interest Rate: 0.4%
CUSIP: 71270QMP8
Estimated Yield: 0.40%
4/15/2016*
249,000.00
249,000.00
-
248,969.99
Capital One Bank USA
DTD 11/26/2014
Interest Rate: 0.65%
CUSIP: 140420QZ6
5/26/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
248,016.86
Discover Bank
DTD 11 /26/2014
CUSIP: 254672EL8
5/26/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
248,016.86
Goldman Sachs Bank
DTD 11/26/2014
CUSIP: 38148JDK4
5/26/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
248,016.86
Ally Bank
DTD 11/28/2014
CUSIP: 02006LLY7
5/31/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
248,017.94
Lubbock National Bank
DTD 03/13/2015
Interest Rate: 0.4%
CUSIP: 549152CL8
6/13/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
247,890.76
Home Exchange Bank
DTD 03/18/2015
CUSIP: 43711ABJ5
6/17/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
247,914.08
8/4/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
Brno Harris Bk National Assn
DTD 11 /04/2015 F/C 08/04/2016
CUSIP: 05573J6D1
Amount
Withdrawn
Since Inception
4/16
~
Value
4
247,864.60
Page 7 of 8
Maturity
Date
Maturity
Value
Amount
Invested
Since Inception
Amount
Withdrawn
Since Inception
Value
*This investment has an option that allows executor(s), surviving owner(s), or beneficiar(ies) to redeem it at par value upon your death
subject to limitations. See the prospectus or banking agreement for additional information.
Estimated Yield
The Estimated Yield (EY) in the preceding sections(s) compares the anticipated earnings on your investments in the coming year to the
current price of the investments. It is based on past interest and dividend payments made by the securities held in your account. Changes in
the price of a security over time or in the amount of the investment held in your account will cause the EY to vary. The EY is only an estimate
and cannot be guaranteed by Edward Jones or the issuers of the securities. Your actual yield may be higher or lower than the estimated
amounts. Estimates for any securities that have a return of principal or capital gain may be overstated. Income cannot be estimated for any
securities that do not have an annual payment amount or frequency available at the time of estimation. Yield to Maturity is typically reported
for Zero Coupon Bonds as these securities do not have an annual payment.
I
Total Account Value
$5,390,658.30
Ratings- Ratings from Standard & Poor's (S&P), Moody's and Fitch may be shown for certain securities. S&P requires we inform you: (1)
Ratings are NOT recommendations to buy, hold, sell or make any investment decisions and DO NOT address suitability or future
performance; (2) S&P DOES NOT guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or availability of any ratings and is NOT responsible for results
obtained from the use of any ratings. Certain disclaimers related to its ratings as are more specifically stated at
http://www.standardandpoors.com/disclaimers.
Summary of Realizeci Gain/lloss
"
,
This Year
Short Term (assets held 1 year or less)
$0.00
Long Term (held over 1 year)
0.00
Total
$0.00
Summary totals may not include proceeds from uncosted securities or certain corporate actions.
Detail of Realiz~a "(S~inllloss from Sal~ of Securities "",
Dollar Bank Fsb CD
Purchase
Date
Sale
Date
03/11/2015
03/11
Quantity
248,000
" ",
"
"
"
"
"
,
", ,
Cost Basis
Proceeds
Realized
Gain/Loss
$248,000.00
$248,000.00
0.00
Summary of Activity
Beginning Balance of Cash, Money Market funds and Insured Bank Deposit
$849,448.87
Additions
Deposits and Transfers In
Income
Other Income
Subtractions
$75,074.85
1,722.23
248,000.00
Total Additions
Ending Balance of Cash, Money Market funds and Insured Bank Deposit
$324, 797 .08
4/16
IS $1,114,245.95
I
Portfolio for Atascadero Mutual Water Co
Page ii of ii
Statement Period Feb 27 - Mar 24, 2016
Overview of ether Rroducts and Services
Account
Number
Balance
Approved
Credit
Available
Credit
Interest
Rate
Amount of money you can borrow
for Atascadero Mutual Water Co
854-08377-1-6
$0.00
$2, 7 40, 667*
$2,740,667
3.50%
Amount of money you can borrow
for Atascadero Mutual Water Co
854-09504-1-0
$0.00
$1,224,411*
$1,224,411
3.50%
Loans and Credit
*Your approved credit is not a commitment to loan funds. It is based on the value of your investment account which could change daily. The amount you may
be eligible to borrow may differ from your approved credit. Borrowing against securities has its risks and is not appropriate for everyone. If the value of your
collateral declines, you may be required to deposit cash or additional securities, or the securities in your account may be sold to meet the margin call. A
minimum account value is required if you have loan features on your account. Your interest will begin to accrue from the date of the loan and be charged to the
account. Your interest rate will vary depending on the assets under care of your Edward Jones Relationship Pricing Group. For more information on how your
interest rate is calculated, contact your financial advisor or please visit: www.edwardjones.com/disclosures/marginloans
Important disclosures; such as Statement of Financial Condition, Conditions that Govern Your Account, Account Saf~. }'~o~ ComP,tints, Withholding,
Free Credit Balance, Fair Market Value or Terminology; relating to your account(s) are available on the last page of ti(f5}alls<t)l or at
www.edwardjones.com/statementdisclosures.
6
-
J.NVu$4-me.vt
Page 1 of 6
Corporate Account
Who Might Benefit From Our Services?
Atascadero Mutual Water Co
Satisfied clients are one of our best sources of referrals, and the
highest compliment you can pay us is the referral of a friend, relative,
neighbor or co-worker. If you know someone who might benefit from
our financial guidance and appreciate the highly personalized service
we offer - or may benefit from a second opinion on his or her
investments - please pass along the name of your financial advisor.
We'd love to introduce him or her to our unique brand of service.
-
~
Account Value
~
~
Value of M5>ur Account (in OOOs)
$5,140
$1,993,680.97
$4,095
'------'--.....
$3,050
1 Month Ago
$1,993, 132.12
$2,005
1 Year Ago
$4, 104,617.43
$960
3 Years Ago
$2,903,054.04
5 Years Ago
$1, 175,844.29
Jun
2014
Sep
Dec
Mar
2015
Jun
Sep
Dec
Mar
2016
Value Summary
This Period
This Year
$1,993,132.12
$2, 189, 180.02
$0.00
$0.00
$335.83
$1,055.33
Assets Withdrawn from Account
$0.00
-$200,000.00
Fees and Charges
$0.00
$0.00
$213.02
$3,445.62
Beginning Value
Assets Added to Account
Income
Change In Value
IEnding Value
I
$1,993,680.97
4/16
17
Account Holder(s) Atascadero Mutu;;tl Water Co
Page 3 of 6
Estimated Interest and Dividends by Month (continued)
Month
Not Reinvested
Reinvested
Total
March
0
0
0
Total.
$6,392
$0
$6,392
Estimated Interest and Dividends by Se,Qurity
~
~
~
3 Months 3 Months
Ending
Ending
June September December
2016
2016
2016
3 Months
Ending
March
2017
12 Month
Total
Quantity
April
2016
Apple Bank for Savings CD
0.3500%
149,000
$522
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$522
Bank of Castile CD 0.5000%
248,000
103
103
103
309
103
0
721
Bank Rhode Island CD 0.6000%
248,000
124
124
124
0
0
0
372
Brookline Bank CD 0.6000%
248,000
124
124
124
0
0
0
372
Clayton Bank & Trust CD 0.5000%
248,000
620
0
0
0
620
0
1,240
GE Capital Bank CD 0.6500%
248,000
0
0
806
0
0
0
806
MY Safra Bank CD 0.5000%
248,000
620
0
0
0
620
0
1,240
Santander Bank CD 0.4500%
248,000
1, 119
0
0
0
0
0
1, 119
$3,232
$351
$1,157
$309
$1,343
$0
$6,392
Total
May
2016
The above is an estimate of the interest and dividends you can expect to earn on your investments in the next 12 months but it is only an
estimate and cannot be guaranteed by Edward Jones or the issuers of the securities. The estimate is known as the Estimated Annual
Income or EAi. It is based on past interest and dividend payments made by the securities held in your account. It is also based on
statements made by the issuers of those securities. The estimates project possible future interest and dividend payments based on the
number of bonds or shares held in your account at the time the estimate was done. Your actual investment income may be higher or lower
than the estimated amounts. Estimates for certain types of securities that have a return of principal or capital gain may be overstated.
Income being reinvested is indicated with '*' . Income cannot be estimated for the securities indicated by'**' . It cannot be estimated
because the annual payment amount or frequency is not available at this time.
"
~
Maturity Schedule
Maturin~
In
Amount Maturing
Current Market Value
Percent of Total Maturing Value
0 - 5 Years
6-15Years
$1,885,000
-
1,883,710
-
100.00%
-
4/16
16 or More Years
-
18
Page 5 of 6
Maturity
Date
Maturity
Value
Amount
Invested
Since Inception
Bank of Castile
OTO 04/15/2015
Interest Rate: 0.5%
CUSIP: 061077BAO
10/14/2016*
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
247,587.05
Clayton Bank & Trust
OTO 04/22/2015
Interest Rate: 0.5%
CUSIP: 184027AL4
10/24/2016 *
248,000.00
248,000.00
-
247,566.69
Amount
Withdrawn
Since Inception
Value
*This investment has an option that allows executor(s), surviving owner(s), or beneficiar(ies) to redeem it at par value upon your death
subject to limitations. See the prospectus or banking agreement for additional information.
Estimated Yield
The Estimated Yield (EY) in the preceding sections(s) compares the anticipated earnings on your investments in the coming year to the
current price of the investments. It is based on past interest and dividend payments made by the securities held in your account. Changes in
the price of a security over time or in the amount of the investment held in your account will cause the EY to vary. The EY is only an estimate
and cannot be guaranteed by Edward Jones or the issuers of the securities. Your actual yield may be higher or lower than the estimated
amounts. Estimates for any securities that have a return of principal or capital gain may be overstated. Income cannot be estimated for any
securities that do not have an annual payment amount or frequency available at the time of estimation. Yield to Maturity is typically reported
for Zero Coupon Bonds as these securities do not have an annual payment.
Total Account Value
$1,993,680.97
Ratings- Ratings from Standard & Poor's (S&P), Moody's and Fitch may be shown for certain securities. S&P requires we inform you: (1)
Ratings are NOT recommendations to buy, hold, sell or make any investment decisions and DO NOT address suitability or future
performance; (2) S&P DOES NOT guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or availability of any ratings and is NOT responsible for results
obtained from the use of any ratings. Certain disclaimers related to its ratings as are more specifically stated at
http://www.standardandpoors.com/disclaimers.
~"'
/:
~
=
~"'
Summary of Activity
""
,,,7""
"'
~
"~
"
Beginning Balance of Cash, Money Market funds and Insured Bank Deposit
$109,634. 75
Additions
Income
,
Subtractions
$335.83
Total Additions
$335.83
Ending Balance of Cash, Money Market funds and Insured Bank Deposit
$109,970.58
4/16
19
Year to date Revenue
Revenue YTD
Period ending March 31, 2016
Period 11 - 11
Fiscal Year 2016
Description
M Res Domestic-AMWC
M Mul Domestic-AMWC
M Com Domestic-AMWC
M Com Irrigation-AMWC
M Com Fire Base-AMWC
M Ind Domestic-AMWC
End Bal
$ 3,884,965.53
$
531,305.24
$
501,382.14
$
$
$
503,117.09
28,733.59
6,885.25
One Year Prior Actual
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,515,442.43
565,691.45
553,108.84
629,812.48
28,522.67
8,115.95
4/16
20
Balance Sheet
Description
Assets
Cash In Checking - HOB
Petty Cash Fund-AMWC
Cash In Savings - HOB
Water Resource Develop. FundMoney Market Certificates-AMWC
Restricted Cash-Cd Ripar
Account Receivable
Allowance for Uncollectible
Deposit Receivable-AMWC
Other Receivable
Accounts Receivable -Misc AR
Inventory - Material-AMWC
Payroll Prepaid Account-AMWC
Prepaid Ins. - Medical
Prepaid Ins - Commercial
Prepaid - PropertyTaxes-AMWC
Prepaid - Misc-Vendor
Prepaid NWP Debt Service
Prepaid NWP O&M account
Total Current Assets
For the Period Ending Monday, February 29, 2016
Current Fiscal YTD
Prior Fiscal YTD
88,224
600
10,438
5,392,524
1,994,635
16,496
425,782
-42,374
7,793
267,656
4,257
397,535
0
27,314
25,799
22,841
26,273
826,520
226,664
9,718,976
161,416
400
10,428
5,258,782
4,106,756
16,472
456,482
-43,427
7,519
296,929
9,380
394,144
475
3,035
29,436
20,562
18,346
327,493
156,060
11,230,689
3,312,390
4,132,850
7,485,193
3,519,341
10,948
27,515,583
8,211,930
948,031
1,140,754
923,381
2,137,031
2,066,524
61,403,955
3,312,390
4,107,835
7,444,470
3,038,877
10,948
26,591,914
7,841,651
948,031
776,432
892,054
1,977,565
2,151,138
59,093,305
-1,034,230
-2,273,259
-1,323,964
-420
-9,072,774
-2,059,114
-624,179
-603,452
-792,676
-974,788
-937,844
-2,127,323
-1,222,890
-200
-8,622,555
-1,943,961
-576,580
-559,287
-776,974
-785,376
Fixed Assets/Property & Equipment
Land-AMWC
Structures & lmprovements-AMWC
Well Equipment-AMWC
Booster Pumping Equipment-AMWC
Treatment Plant Equipment-AMWC
Transmission & DistributionStorage Tanks-AMWC
SCADA System-AMWC
Machinery & Equipment-AMWC
Vehicles-AMWC
Office Equipment-AMWC
Construction In Progress-AMWC
Total Fixed Assets
Accumulated Depreciation
Ace Dep-Structures & lmprov
Ace Dep-Well Equipment-AMWC
Ace Dep-Booster Pumping EquipAcc Dep-Treatment Plant EquipAcc Dep-Transmission & DistAcc Dep-Storage Tanks-AMWC
Ace Dep-SCADA System-AMWC
Ace Dep-Machinery & EquipmentAcc Dep-Vehicles-AMWC
Ace Dep-Office Equipment-AMWC
4/16
21
Balance Sheet
Description
Accumulated Depreciation
Total Assets
Current Fiscal YTD
Prior Fiscal YTD
-18,758,856
-17,552,991
52,364,075
52,771,002
-162,256
-46,582
0
-25,921
0
-402,884
0
0
57
12,760
2,500
-2,041
-12,180
-122,500
-5,325
-19,200
-7,976
-791,548
-329,131
-47,736
-179
-18,430
0
-273,095
887
-5,411
0
0
0
-1,503
-18,180
-25,000
-3,340
-19,200
-4,932
-745,251
-48,193
-48,193
0
0
-839,741
-745,251
-102,748
-2,737,610
-40,247,920
-8,953,922
517,866
-51,524,334
-52,364,075
-102,757
-2,687,788
-40,247,911
-6,231,640
-2,732,027
-52,002,124
-52,747,374
Liabilities
Account Payable-AMWC
Unapplied Customer PaymentsCustomer Refunds Due-AMWC
Accrued Salaries-AMWC
Accrued Vision Insurance
Accrued Benefits-AMWC
Accrued Taxes - Federal
Accrued Taxes - Payroll-StateAccrued Work Comp Expense
Accrued Employee Pension-AMWC
Accrued Exp.s - Misc
Accrued Taxes - Income Tax-FTB
Deposits - Fire Hydrant Meters
Connect Fees-uninstalled mtrsMeter fees-uninstalled metersMain Extension In Lieu-AMWC
Unearned Cell Site Rent
Total Current Liabilities
Long Term Liabilities
NWP Debt-AMWC
Total Long Term Liabilities
Total Liablities
Owner's Equity
Capital Stock-AMWC
Contributed Capital-AMWC
Surplus-AMWC
Retained Earnings-AMWC
Current Income
Fund Bal and Ret Earnings Total
Total Liabilities & Owner's Equity
4/16
22
Budget Report
Budget
Description
Period Actual
Period Bgt
YTD Budget
YTDActual
Remaining Budget
%Used
Revenue
-
-
(1,568,000)
(300,000)
(3,000)
{130,667)
(25,000)
(250)
{98,000)
(26,077)
(650)
(1,306,667)
(250,000)
(2,500)
(5,089,034)
{63,553)
(2,062)
(131,548)
(18,609)
(8,819)
(28,055)
(2,750)
(1,705,700)
(260,431)
(13,678)
(9,001,000)
(750,083)
(470,206)
{7,500,833)
{7,324,240)
1,215,000
(243,000)
412,000
16,000
45,000
10,000
529,000
21,000
150,000
875,000
101,250
(20,250)
34,333
1,333
3,750
833
44,083
1,750
12,500
72,917
98,879
(25,837)
32,914
2,424
2,623
690
36,368
6,881
6,585
65,640
1,012,500
(202,500)
343,333
13,333
37,500
8,333
440,833
17,500
125,000
729,167
988,272
(192,182)
299,683
15,779
27,939
7,926
442,228
19,301
106,775
619,935
3,030,000
252,500
227,166
2,525,000
2,335,656
(6,839,000)
(74,000)
(5,000)
(141,000)
(26,000)
(5,000)
(40,000)
Rental Income
Service Income
Interest Income
Total
(569,917)
(6,167)
(417)
(11,750)
(2,167)
(417)
(3,333)
(323,824)
{6,473)
(107)
(13,503)
(1,213)
(360)
(5,699,167)
{61,667)
(4,167)
(117,500)
(21,667)
(4,167)
{33,333)
-
(1,749,966)
(10,447)
(2,938)
(9,452)
{7,391)
3,819
{11,945)
2,750
137,700
(39,569)
10,678
74.41%
85.88%
41.24%
93.30%
71.57%
176.39%
70.14%
0.00%
108.78%
86.81%
455.95%
(1,676,760) 81.37%
Plant Operations Expenses
Employee benefits
Insurance
.i::a.
Utility charges
" ' - Repairs and Maintenance
....,. Outside services
~
Otherexpense
N
w
Total
226,728
(50,818)
112,317
221
17,061
2,074
86, 772
1,699
43,225
255,065
81.34%
79.09%
72.74%
98.62%
62.09%
79.26%
83.60%
91.91%
71.18%
70.85%
694,344 77 .08%
Budget Report
Budget
Description
Non-Plant Operations Expenses
Employee benefits
Insurance
Utility charges
Property Taxes
Outside services
Other expense
Total
Period Bgt
Period Actual
745,000
(7,000)
166,000
3,600
29,000
13,000
50,000
48,500
317,100
44,000
192,960
128,000
1,730,160
62,083
(583)
13,833
300
2,417
1,083
4,167
4,042
26,425
3,667
16,080
10,667
144,180
15,000
31,000
3,369,000
250,000
1,250
2,583
280,750
20,833
YTD Actual
YTD Budget
55,754
12,247
70
1,677
1,385
5,710
2,195
21,492
7,004
10,442
9,890
127,866
Remaining Budget
%Used
620,833
(5,833)
138,333
3,000
24,167
10,833
41,667
40,417
264,250
36,667
160,800
106,667
1,441,800
593,256
(3,258)
121,578
4,893
18,942
9,355
54,563
27,993
231,835
62,147
94,552
97,362
1,313,219
151,744
(3,742)
44,422
(1,293)
10,058
3,645
(4,563)
20,507
85,265
(18,147)
98,408
30,638
416,941
79.63%
46.54%
73.24%
135.92%
65.32%
71.96%
109.13%
57.72%
73.11%
141.24%
49.00%
76.06%
75.90%
12,500
25,833
2,807,500
208,333
2,250
4,015
552,324
(33,124)
(19,475)
25,779
531,769
85.00%
87.05%
83.61%
113.25%
0.00%
97.57%
11.25%
Income Tax Expense
NacmientoWater Project
..s;::.. SGMA Compliance
.......... Depreciation Expense
i....a
Total
°'
N
..S::..
Revenue Total
Expense Total
Ret Earnings Total
-
-
1,060,000
4,725,000
88,333
393,750
1,275
2,500
253,145
115,093
19,475
105,995
497,484
(9,001,000)
9,485,160
484,160
(750,083)
790,430
40,347
(470,206)
852,516
382,309
883,333
3,937,500
12,750
26,985
2,816,676
283,124
19,475
1,034,221
4,193,231
(7,500,833)
7,904,300
403,467
(7,324,240)
7,842,106
517,867
-
(1,676,760) -81.00%
1,643,054 83.00%
(33,706) 1.00%
CONSERVATION MANAGER'S REPORT
A/O April 7, 2016
CUWCC Best Management Practices (BMP's)
1.
PUBLIC INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Number of Complaints
Number of Follow-ups
Number of Formal Follow-ups
Number of Penalties
19
2
0
0
23
32
9
3
0
0
0
0
Media
a. Radio - April Message
AMWC, Paso Robles, TCSD, SLO County
February 2016 - 30 sec spot
This winter has brought the Central Coast some badly needed rain. However, it will take years to
replenish water supplies to pre-drought conditions. Save big this year by making permanent
changes to your landscaping and water use:
•
It's a great time to plan the conversion of your lawn to drought tolerant landscapingand you may be eligible for a rebate from saveourwaterrebates.com or your local water
provider.
• Also check for leaks in your irrigation system, especially after freezes, and fix those
leaking toilets, showers, faucets, and appliances.
For more conservation tips and information visit saveourwater.com or contact your local water
supplier. Brought to you by your North County water providers.
b. Facebook
Currently advertising the workshops.
Outreach - Event Registration/Attendance
Upcoming Events:
Conservation Celebration at the CPZ
Water-Conserving Landscape Judging
Chamber WIB Faire
Saturday, April 16
Friday, April 29
Thursday, May 12
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
Event
2016
2016#
Well Field Tour (1)
5-Feb
8
Mow No More
2-Mar
21
Well Field Tour (2)
4-Mar
6
Anza Talk
7-Mar
25
Graywater & Rainwater Harvesting
16-Mar
19
How to Water Your Lawn with Less
23-Mar
3
Well Field Tour (3)
1-Apr
5
Drip 101
6-Apr
5
Colorful Plants for Spring & Summer
20-Apr
25
Colorful Plants for Fall & Winter
27-Apr
12
4/16
25
2.
HOME WATER SURVEYS
2016
0
1
1
4-yr avg
1
0
1
3.
10
10
9
4
6
2
2
1
48
INDOOR REBATES
2016
1
1
3
2-yr avg
5
1
6
4.
2
4
5
5
7
5
3
6
8
6
5
2
55
$ 250
$ 2,725
LANDSCAPE REBATES
In-progress Turf Conversions a/o 04/07/16
Rebate Amount
38
$7,126
-
-- -
Land~cape Rebate Tr~~~ing CY_2_016
Turf Conversion
FEB
JAN
MAR
Pre-i nspection
1
1
Completed
7
4
SQ FT Converted
10,052
5,230
Amount Rebated $ 2,513
$1,308
$ 250
FEB
MAR
Controllers
JAN
---
Total
APR
4
-
AVG
6
2
1
-
12
3
1,000
-
16,282
4,071
-
$ 4,071
$1,018
Total
AVG
$
APR
Pre-inspection
0
0
0
0
0
0
No. of Control I ers
0
0
0
0
0
0
$0
0
0
Amount Rebated
Future
•
•
•
Items:
Updated Model Efficient Ordinance
CUWCC BMP Reporting
Urban Water Management Plan
4/16
26
MONTHLY REPORT BY GENERAL MANAGER
April 2016
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY.
REPORT ITEMS - CHANGE OF STATUS:
Rainfall:
Total rainfall for the period of July 1- March 31was15.26". The long-term average
rainfall for this period is 15.81".
Monthly Rainfall
as measured at 6575Sycamore Rd, Atascadero, CA
'iii'
~
u
4.0 - 1 - - - --
- - - - - ----- -----11-- - - -
c
==- 3.0
~
- ! - - - - - - - - -----
'ii 2.0 +----
-
-
- - - -----
0:
:;
.....
>
u
..c
z
c
u.
Q)
0
• Average
Q)
....
<ti
~
c:
.....::>
• Current Rain Year
Cumulative Rainfall
as measured at 6575Sycamore Rd, Atascadero, CA
18 . -- -- - - - - - - - --
16
'iii'
~
u
--------
- t - - - - - - - - - - - - - --=- ---1------1-
14 -+-- - - - - - - - - - - - 12 -+-- - - - - - - - - - -- - -
:§. 10 +--- - - -- - - - - - - - -
i:
0:
+----
-
- - - - -- -
4 +-- - - - - - - - -
2 +-------0 -1-----.___.._,....._ _,_........
:;
.....
"°
::>
<!;
a.
Q)
VI
ti
0
>
0
z
• Average
.,
.,
u
..c
c
LL
...
"'
~
c:
.....::>
• Current Rain Year
4/16
27
Well Levels:
Figure 1 shows the static water level (SWL} in Well No. 11, which is at the northerly end
ofthe main well field. The static water level in the well field has risen to 19.1 feet below
ground surface (BGS} on April 1 from 34.4 feet BGS on March 1.
Deep Well Field
Production & NWP Inflow vs. SWL
s
e
1,600
U) ..-.
c'
N Cl
111'
gN
~ en'
:I ...
e
0
1,400
20
..... -
"g
0
0.
'
U)
s
40
~
:I
.......
=c
se
...s ::
...
... "g
' 0.
QI 0
>
...
Qj"
u
ii: 1,200
.5!
...
c 1,000
QI
... <i z
60
800
.!!! en ~
'
:I
E"'' ·..:I <i -5
u U) E
t>Q
0
600
.; a
Qi
s
:I
80
111QI
..Cl
QI
QI
400
~
100
200
"'C: '("' -5"'..... ::!lt;
0.
ro
.....
'f.
.....
7
.....
c;>
.....
7
.....
-
~
~
ro
7
c.
C:
.....
.!.
...l.
::J
'f.
.....
7
Production
.,., .,., .,., .,., \D
..... ..... .....
.....
~
....u C: .!.c. -5 '(
....u roC:
ro
~
c;>
.....
.....
.....
-
'f.
.....
7
0
7
.....
NWPlnflow
~
-
7
.....
!!:;.
120
~
.!.
~
'f.
.....
7
.....
c.
ID
\D
.....
t;
::J
c;>
.....
SWL
Figure 1
Nacimiento Water Project (NWP):
On April 1, the lake was at 35% capacity with 130,685 acre-feet (af) of storage, up from
84,560 af on March 1. AMWC is currently not receiving water from the NWP.
I 400,000
j
Nacimiento Lake Storage
]_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
; 350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
I 100,000
I
so,ooo
1
0
_ _ _ _ _ __ , /
jr-----;..---------s"'
s"'
s"'
~
0
~
....
-
current Storage (acre-feet)
~
0
-
s;;,-"'
0
0
Storage Capacity
4/16
28
Water Production:
The Board declared a Stage 2 water shortage condition in February 2014. The State
mandated a 28% reduction in water use for AMWC in April 2015. The State extended the
conservation mandate through October 2016. Table 1 shows the effects of AMWC's water
reduction efforts under the water shortage declaration and the State mandate.
Table 1- Water Production (million gallons)
Year/Month
Feb
Jan
Mar
227
212
85
99
118
173
199
198
187
174
74
107
122
133
151
148
154
155
73
72
79
41.6%
5.1%
(16.9%)
(32.5%)
(15.0%)
(13.2%)
(16.8%)
(17.4%)
(18.1%)
0.8%
(8.4%)
(10.0%)
(30.1%)
(35.0%)
(34.1%)
(38.0%)
(31.9%)
(26.9%)
(12.0%)
(10.7%)
(33.7%)
2015
84
2016
2016/2013
Sept
238
118
Reduction,
Aug
229
2014
Reduction,
Jul
204
81
2015/2013
Jun
174
83
Reduction,
May
119
2013
2014/2013
Apr
SGMA Compliance:
On March 30, Templeton Community Services District (TCSD) submitted an application
to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) for a basin boundary modification. The
application requested that the DWR separate the Atascadero Basin from the Paso Robles Basin
based on scientific evidence.
Staff continues to work with stakeholders in the Atascadero Basin to create a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). Staff met with the Santa Ysabel Ranch Mutual Water
Company board, representatives of the Paso Robles Wine County Alliance, and County
Supervisor candidate John Peschong to solicit their support of an Atascadero Basin GSA and
support of TCSD's basin boundary modification request. The information presented at those
meetings was well received.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Next Meeting Date: May 18, 2016
5:30 p.m., Regular meeting
6:30 p.m., Annual meeting
NO CHANGE OF STATUS - REPORT ITEMS:
4/16
29
CORRESPONDENCE & NEWS ARTICLES
The attached is for information only
4/16
30
John Neil
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cheryl Powers
Monday, March 21, 2016 11:33 AM
John Neil; David A. Clark
FW: Water line repair
From: Orville Morgan [mailto:
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 11:32 AM
To: Cheryl Powers <cpowers@amwc.us>
Subject: Water line repair
This morning your crew came out to repair a leaking line in front of our property at 815 5 Los Osos Rd. They
did a great job locating and fixing the leak with minimal disruption to traffic. Your workers are to
be commended for a job well done.
Sent from Samsung tablet.
1
4/16
31
Co111tim.ne!I from Page Ai
The decision comes as a response to a
drought-induced reduction in water consumption by Atascadero residents, which cost
AMWC needed operational revenue.
According to an AMWC press ·release, the
rate increase is needed to offset the· reduction in
revenue resulting from AMWC's compliance
with the governor's executive order mandating
AWMC to reduce water consumption, which
was recently extended through October 2016.
"We always encourage our customers to
conserve;' AMWC general 'manager John
Neil said, "in drought mode, like this particular drought, two years ago we said 'we need
you to cut back about 15 percent.' s.ubsequent
to that, the governor [Jerry Brown] mandated
that all municipalities reduce by 25 percent then went purveyor by purveyor, and applied a
conservation standard based on per-capita use.
We have a relatively. high per-capita use because we are a large-lot, rural subdivision. Our
average lot size is an acre-and-a-half - people have horses, they have gardens, they have
vineyards, but based on per-capita usage, we
are lumped in the same group with the small,
postage-stamp lots in San Luis Obispo."
According to Neil, Atascadero residents
have a history of responsible action when
called on to reduce water use, and essentially
that responsible action cuts into the revenue
needed to maintain the Atascadero water system. The governor's mandate requiredAMWC
to reduce water consumption by 28 percent,
putting Atascadero's local water company in
danger of running a heavy budget deficit after
just a couple of years of reduction.
"I can absorb a reduction of 15 percent,"
Neil said. "Year over year, that is problematic,
but one or two years is not. All of a sudden, I'm
mandated to conserve 28 percent and now it is
two years in a row. One ye<µ, water sales were
15-percent down, last year they were 30-percent down, and the governor extended his declaration for this upcoming irrigation season.
So I'm facing another significant reduction in
revenue."
Atascadero's relatively easy access to water also means a large overhead to maintain the
underground system that pumps the water from
the source to the household tap.
"My revenue fell from $7 .2 million per
year, just for water sales, down to $6 million,"
Neil said. "We just cannot absorb that. My
fixed operating costs are huge. The only variables are treatment chemicals and electricity. If
I do not pump water, I still have to maintain all
this stuff because when people turn the tap on,
they want water to come out. If I have a lealc, I
have to fix it."
From the basin to the tap, Atascadero has
the largest water ,system in San Luis Obispo
County, and the lowest water rates. An increase
g!ccg_.:.s
~eE.!!~~
"- -c ..:J ce oo
e
U'}
i:-:0
0
ID
:::: ...c:
"'"'"
~
C)
•c;:j
l--1
'"d ~
~§-=-Q)oc.C!J
:g(.)~i'""~~
r:: ~
0 C)
:!c..::EC?-~~
Cl,)
0
UJ
ctl
... 0
2:!
·-
~.5$...,cag
Q)
~ca~=§.;!
E "'"'"'"'
-$m~~ .._:g
~§~~~~
Cc-CCV~
r..OC!>-cn:.
-==
g~-.;;:g-~~
Q);.c
w.EQ>;"iam
~cnt; 0 :;c
cc:!:::·-
g ·-Cl
·Q)
•l"""l
~o-;ruc""".
o>.
OOQ-Ca>
~fd§.st~~
u
~
~
<
u
l--1
C)
~
0
N
I
if)
,......
·=
V)
z3
0 LU
<11Z
I-
0
~
"'
4-<
0
.;::!
0
0
"'
r.r.l
s]:: i5s
.§
cc u
~~
<t:B..15§.S
LU
z :c
> fm LL
0
"'"'
<I)
~ ~u .";:~ 6'~
- ' V)
-
ll:
§U.08!::
.G ~
5~
l;:
(1)
<II <(
<(
r.ri
I.LI
0
!;;;: a:
E~
0
ct
~ ~
§~
"There is some people that are using the minimum. Do we apply an increase evenly across
the board, or do we apply it in our tiered rate
structure somehow, so the people who use
more, pay more?"
AMWC adopted the current water rates
in April of 2012, and according to Neil, the
AMWC board of directors is expected to have
a decision on new rates in April.
"We look at rates every year," Neil said,
"and we malce a five-year forecast. We assume
that next year will be low again - then if we
lift restrictions, water usage should creep back
up. Our options are that if usage swings way
up, we can reduce the rates. We've done that
before, back in 1990 under similar conditions."
Drought-tolerant landscaping is one way
residents have responded to the demand for
conservation, and both AMWC and the State
of California offer incentives for conversion.
Contact AMWC for more information before
changing landscapes.
In addition to reduced water sales revenue,
AMWC has and will incur significant additional costs to comply with the new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act legislation,
comply with the expanded National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System requirements
for potable water, and continue its defense in
the Steinbeck quiet title action.
Questions regarding the water rate increase
may be directed to John Neil, General Manager, 464-5351, or jneil@amwc.us.
~
~ ~ .~ ~ ~
bl)~
a;i
rs i~~:-;
... 0::
~ k 0 8
C)
~~';~ ~ g
z(..)
will change that, and Atascadero will go from
the lowest water rates to the second-lowest water rates.
"We have the largest water system in the
county," Neil said. "Right now, our shareholders have the lowest water rates in the county.
Right now, the average water bill is $36 to $38,
and the average water bill will probably go
up about $6 or $7, some people higher, some
lower."
Rate increases are common when faced
with drought-induced water conservation, and
AMWC is working to apply an increase that
does not feel like a penalty for responsible water conservation. The problem it faces, is that
when residents conserve, the money to maintain or improve the system still needs to be gen·erated - just like conservation, maintenance is
also a community-wide concern.
"We lmow we need to see an increase of
revenue of about 15 percent," Neil said. "How
do we modify the rates to accomplish that? Do
we leave the base fee alone at $18, or do we
raise the base fee $2, or $4? And how does that
affect everything?"
Neil described a number of spreadsheets
that produced various outcomes that keep the
AMWC reserves above the desired levels. The
AMWC board of directors will decide which
formula will best suit the needs of the residents
and the needs of the system.
"The discussion at the board meeting is
how do we apply the rate increase," Neil said.
~N
I .g:ro .·t::. :- ~
~
cr.i
Oo<l)°""'.
c::: k)~<.cS
w "C
c:: "'..0
s ·-
0<(~Q)ooi::;B
"'
g ""
U
Ill
i:t1
~
..c
~
·-
cr.i
ro
"'
::::
<C<B2S::3>-.
!:;(£]0 s.g£=:
.S&B~E
u:i
.....
\~
~
-
~
-s
.~
~
'--~·Y·
{'\
N
M
~
r-1
'.....
Paso City Council approves five years of water rate
.
increases
By PETER JOHNSON
After five straight years of water rate increases from 2012 to 2016, residents of Paso Robles are
bracing for another five more.
On March 15, the Paso Robles City Council unanimously voted to pass an ordinance that
mandates more years of water rate hikes beginning next year. In 2017, rates will rise by 4 3 cents
to $4.83 per hundred cubic feet (HCF) and a fixed monthly charge of $5 will be added to bills.
By 2021, the rates will increase to $6.56 per HCF and the monthly fixed charge will double to
$10.
The ordinance is designed to cover the increasing water expenses faced by the city as Paso
Robles' water supply transitions away from the struggling Paso Robles Groundwater Basin to
water in Lake Nacimiento. The city has to pay off debt from building a water treatment plant,
and the rate increases cover plans to repair some deteriorating infrastructure such as century-old
tanks and pipes.
"We have a number of water lines in the community that are in excess of 100-years-old," said
Director of Public Works Dick McKinley. "Customers need us to replace those pipes, pumps,
and valves, or risk having their water supply in their homes suddenly halt."
McKinley explained that if Paso Robles continues to operate on its current water rates, by 2021,
the city will face a $18 million deficit.
"For 2015-2016, we expect there will be about $13 million of [water] expenses and about $10
million in revenue," he said. "Anyone in business knows that this is not a sustainable model
based on the prior rates."
The ordinance was introduced in November so residents had time to mount a majority protest
under Proposition 218 to stop its passage. The protest required 5,000 individuals to be
successful, but it only garnered 639.
Despite falling short on the petition, there was a lengthy public comment period at the meeting
that occasionally got testy between speakers and Mayor Steven Maiiin. Many speakers
bemoaned 10 years of rate hikes and begged the council to find alternate funding mechanisms.
"I honestly don't know what exactly the answer is, but I do think the council's job is to find
affordable solutions," said Keith Entwistle of Paso Robles. "I just don't see how you can justify
over a 50 percent rate increase."
One popular revenue alternative proposed during public comment was to introduce a water
surcharge for tourists.
4/16
33
"If they tacked on an extra $5 on Friday and Saturday nights here in existing [hotel] rooms, you
can do the math," said resident Bob Barker. "Do you think people would cancel their vacation in
Paso Robles because they upped the rate $5 per night? They wouldn't even know it or care."
City Attorney Iris Yang responded that the concept of targeting the tourism industry to pay more
for water was legally tenuous.
Prior to voting in favor of the ordinance, Councilmember Fred Strong tried to put the issue into
historical perspective for the public.
"The thing [the city of Paso Robles] was well known for historically was pleasing the public and
kicking the can down the road," Strong said. "When it came to our regular water supply, we
relied on groundwater. That particular source is in most jeopardy for the future of this city right
now .... It's not a matter of higher taxes or lower taxes. It's a matter of appropriate fees for what
we need to do to give you a secure, safe, and sufficient supply of water."
The council vote was on the first reading of the ordinance, and it will return to the council for a
second reading on March 29.
4/16
34
Water fight: A look at the proposed Paso Robles Basin
Water District's resounding defeat
By JONO KINKADE
It was an electoral massacre.
By the evening of March 8, preliminary results of a special mail-in election for a tax and the
formation of the Paso Robles Basin Water District showed overwhelming defeat, with "no" votes
hitting more than 70 percent.
Even to Tommy Gong, San Luis Obispo County's impartial clerk-recorder, the results were a bit
of a surprise.
"I don't think anyone expected the result the way it turned out," Gong said.
It took years of planning; more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars and campaign funds; and a
long road winding to Sacramento, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission. Now the water district is dead, and people are pondering and
pontificating about what's next.
Politics plagued and polarized the proposal from the start. It attracted heated opposition from
groups against new regulations and taxes-like the Paso Robles Water Integrity Network (PRWIN) and the SLO County Cattlemen's Association-and groups concerned that the district
would unfairly represent and benefit large land owners, including North County Watch, and the
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club. Supporters included the viticulturalist group Paso Robles
Agricultural Alliance for Groundwater Solutions (PRAAGS), the rural residential group PRO
Water Equity, and Citizens Advocating for Local Management, and the SLO County Farm
Bureau, which all said the district was the best route for maintaining local control.
666
The idea came up during a crisis. A major political battle erupted in 2013 after dozens of rural
residential wells went dry. All around them, vineyards were being planted and new wills drilled.
It angered people, and their voices were loud.
Supervisors narrowly passed an urgency ordinance banning new wells unless certain
requirements were met. The ordinance became permanent.
During that time, PRAAGS proposed the f01mation of a California water district to facilitate the
funding and construction of supplemental water to replenish the basin.
To form that district, voters would get one vote per acre, giving large landowners the ability to
sway the outcome.
4/16
35
The residential group PRO Water Equity said this wasn't fair, and lobbied for one vote per
person.
In December 2013, with the help of Supervisor Frank Mecham (his district partly overlies the
basin), the groups devised a hybrid district with a nine-member board, including three seats
elected by registered voters and two seats each for small, medium, and large landowners. The
district required legislation in Sacramento, so Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian sponsored
Assembly Bill 2453.
Meanwhile, California lawmakers passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), requiring management of high priority basins in severe overdraft, including the Paso
basin. A Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) must be formed for those basins by June 30,
2017, and a Groundwater Sustainability Plan must be created by 2020 to chaii a course for the
basin to be balanced by 20 years later. If requirements aren't met, the state may intervene,
bringing what many consider a like-it-or-not management method (the details on when and how
that would happen are still fiercely debated).
For supporters, the proposed district was considered to be the best anchor for a GSA, which
would also include the county and other agencies and cities over the basin.
Those supp01iers, including a couple of supervisors, say that the Board of Supervisors dropped
the ball too many times and that local control-where basin overliers represent themselves-was
optimal. They said it was either that or eventual state intervention.
"We wouldn't be where we're at if something had been done in the past," said Sue Luft,
president of PRO Water Equity, which folded after the election. "I don't see that the decision
makers are going to make the decisions that are needed."
Cody Ferguson of PR-WIN, which campaigned against the district, disagrees and said the county
should be the GSA. He said that it'd be cheaper for the county to do so.
Opponents said the district would have favored larger landowners and pumpers, helping them
gain control of the groundwater. They said it was a costly and unnecessary body to do a job that
the supervisors, sitting at the head of the county's Flood Control and Water Conservation
District, already do.
Even if that's the case, new funds are still needed for a GSA, and it isn't clear where they'll
come from or who will pay.
Those details might come to the fore as supervisors Debbie Arnold (who also has an overlying
district) and Lynn Compton prepare an effort for the county to take the lead.
"We're making it more complicated than it has to be," Arnold said. "I'm hoping we can get
everyone together at the table and say, 'Let's get together and manage the basin.' Done."
4/16
36
That's made a lot of people nervous, because Arnold and Compton vociferously opposed the
countywide water conservation ordinance, a measure designed to slow increasing water demand.
That's one reason Supervisor Mecham is reluctant to keep control in the county. At the board's
March 15 meeting, supervisors Bruce Gibson and Adam Hill suggested it was time the county
began talks with the state to consider the options. Mecham said he was interested but is still
looking to learn more before chmiing a course.
"I think no matter what, there has to be some sort of cost component to whatever we're going to
have to," Mecham told New Times. "It would be put back in our lap to figure out-is there
staffing? Is there funding? And if this is going to be specific to an area, is it fair to the rest of the
county for taxpayers to pay for us to figure this out up here?"
666
Paso voters faced three choices on their mail-in ballots: Measures A and B, and candidates
running for the board, should one be created.
Measure A would have created funding for district management, whether or not the district itself
was created. It needed a two-thirds majority for approval; 77.3 percent of voters said no.
Measure B, which would have created a water district, saw 73 percent of voters say no.
Voter turnout was high, showing 64 and 65 percent of voters, respectively.
It's abundantly clear: Voters above the basin don't want a water district, nor do they want to pay
more taxes.
Many say an ideological aversion to taxes and government was a large factor. More than half of
voters are registered Republicans, 21 percent Democrats, and 19 percent are non-partisan or have
no paiiy preference.
That the annual cost for many people would be less than $100 didn't matter.
Each parcel would have been assessed a $15 flat fee, with additional fees of $20 per singlefamily residence, $40 per multi-family residence, and $10 per vacant parcel.
Non-iITigated properties were 25 cents per acre, while irrigated parcels were $18 an acre. By
design, most of the expenses would have been borne by iITigated agriculture, the basin's biggest
water user, paying an estimated 89 percent of the total $950,689 annual operating cost.
The vote still has Dana Merrill, vice chair of PRAAGS and owner of Mesa Vineyard
Management and Pomar Junction Vineyard and Winery, scratching his head.
4/16
37
"Small landowners made the decision, but they were going to pay a very small portion of the
cost," he said. "It's very interesting because I can't imagine whatever comes in the future you're
going to be able to get agriculture to pay for 85 percent of it."
Luft, of PRO Water Equity, also sees the missed opportunity.
"It's crazy because the big agricultural guys were ready to do that," she said. "Not happy to do
that, but willing to do that."
Willing indeed, Merrill said.
"I don't want to sound like sour grapes, so to speak, but if we were to have won I would have
gladly accepted it," he said.
But for many rural residents, it wasn't that simple.
Cindy Stevens, a Geneseo area resident profiled by New Times in 2013 after she had to drill a
new well, wouldn't say how she voted but said deciding how to vote was tough.
"The majority of people, myself included, really struggled with figuring out which way to vote,"
she said. "We all voted, we wanted to be responsible, but we weren't sure if we were going to
vote the right way."
She said that a lot of voters had concerns with either option.
"On one side, no water district, we're keeping everything in the hands of our Board of
Supervisors, which quite frankly have not done a great job," she said. "On the other hand, voting
for a water district means more taxation."
Stevens said it wasn't the dollar amount but the concept of another tax that caused unsettling
feelings.
"This is a really hard time for most people that we know," she said. "On top of that, a lot of
people have had brand-new wells drilled."
Many residents harbored resentment toward the wine industry and were uncomfmiable funding a
district backed by the people often blamed for causing the problem.
PR-WIN's Greg Grewal said there's a fundamental issue there.
"Where was the incentive for me to be a part of something that I don't benefit from?" Grewal
said.
During public meetings, Grewal often got fiery and didn't shy away from calling out people or
double standards. But when he and fellow PR-WIN member Ferguson were interviewed in a
booth at the Loading Chute in Creston, he calmly discussed the topic.
4/16
38
He pointed out that landowners already have to pay for their own wells and all the other
components of personal water delivery, and now they're being asked to fund a management
district that would service those who've used the resource irresponsibly.
"It's like you buy a car, you keep it full of gas, you make sure that the tires and the oil is good,
and I'll use it. And if it runs low on gas, you just give me a credit card and I'll keep it full,''
Grewal said, raising his hands and exhaling with a chuckle of disbelief. "Give me a break. How
does that work?"
That was a concept many voters had trouble with, overshadowing the fact that no matter what
they think, more taxes may be inevitable.
Steve Crouch, a Jardin area resident who manages a dry-farmed vineyard on the west side, said
he watched ideology overcome factual analysis, describing it as a "nobody is going to tell me
what to do with my water" kind of attitude.
"So we all suffer," he said.
Sue Harvey, president of the land-use watchdog No1ih County Watch, disagrees, saying that the
lopsided results show it was more than ideology or one key issue.
"If it had just been an ideological thing, and it was Republicans versus whatever or
environmentalists versus whatever, it wouldn't have had that kind of result,'' said Harvey, who
opposed the district.
Still, for Crouch, there were reasons to support it.
"It's nice to have individual rights, but this water is not an individual issue, it's a community
issue,'' he said. "It's not over yet. The aquifer is decreasing, and big government is headed our
way. It's just a matter of time."
666
Another factor that swayed many to the no side-the fear that powerful outside interests wanted
to move, store, and privatize water.
Not long after the water district was first pitched by PRAAGS, people began drawing
connections between the group and the arrival of new companies that are supposedly in the
water-selling business.
For those loathing this plot, there was one specific acquisition that heightened fears.
In 2010, Justin Winery & Vineyard was bought by Beverly Hills billionaire Stewaii Resnick,
owner of the agricultural empire The Wonderful Company (formerly known as Roll Global). The
company owns Fiji Water, POM Wonderful pomegranate juice, the cut flower brand Telaflora,
4/16
39
and the ever-expanding Paramount Farms, the world's largest almond, pistachio, and
pomegranate producer and a major citrus producer.
Resnick has serious influence in California water politics and has a reputation for using heavy
legal muscle when it comes to water policy and accumulation.
When he purchased Justin, people got nervous. Stories about his various involvements circulate
like folktales, along the way being exaggerated or changed.
In 2013, the company bought the 742-acre Hardham Ranch in the El Pomar area east of
Templeton. Residents said their wells declined after new wells began pumping there. The
company became the poster child for all that was and could go wrong.
Eventually people started connecting the dots and identified several big players that raised
suspicions. Another suspect is Brodiaea Inc., a subsidiary of Harvard University's in-house
investment management firm Harvard Management Company, which purchased existing
vineyards and planted several parcels near Shandon, Highway 46 and Geneseo Road, and
Cuyama. The Shandon properties, where several deep wells were sunk, are very close to the state
water pipeline, raising suspicions of a plan to connect the groundwater to the pipeline.
There are others, too, including the agribusiness and real estate company Limoneira-known for
their citrus and avocados, and for having connections to the water wheeling company Candiz
Inc.-which purchased Windfall Farms, the once-lush Creston Valley horse ranch formerly
owned by Jeopardy host Alex Trebek.
"The business plan is clearly to plant grapes, create an agricultural history, and then fallow it,"
Ferguson with PR-WIN said.
Once it's fallowed and a water use history has been established, he said, it could be sold off to
the highest bidder.
Many members of the wine industry downplay these concerns however, and say that buying and
running vineyards is just a good investment, not part of a ploy to deal in water. Representatives
for Justin and Brodiaea both say they supported the district because they want to be part of the
solution to stabilize the basin.
"We are fully committed to being part of a long-term solution that meets the needs of our
neighbors as well as our region's rich agricultural heritage," wrote Mark Carmel, associate
director of corporate communications for The Wonderful Company, in a statement. "We
suppo1ied formation of a water district because there is no question that our water basin is in
trouble and we believe that decisions to solve the groundwater challenge require involvement by
government, business owners, and private citizens alike. Formation of a water district represents
a fair approach to managing this precious resource."
Matt Tunentine, of Grapevine Capital Partners, the local agent for Brodiaea, had a similar
response.
4/16
40
"Our investments are purely agricultural in nature," he wrote in an email. "Our business is
growing wine grapes. We have no plans connected with the State Water Project, and the
acquisition of any properties in close proximity to any infrastructure is coincidental."
Still, Tunentine and Resnick are constantly attacked, as is anyone connected to them.
That includes Luft, who operated an environmental engineering firm in Bakersfield with her
husband before retiring to this area. Years ago, they held a consulting contract with the Kern
Water Bank, which Resnick controls. Now she's constantly accused of being involved in the plot
as a "former employee" of Resnick.
She's never met the man.
"None of it's based in facts. They're totally lies .... These people [making the allegations] don't
even know me," she said. "It's so hard to disprove a conspiracy theory when people get that in
their heads."
Ferguson thinks there's a conspiracy at work, but doesn't think it's a theory. He's unapologetic
that fears of a sinister bigger picture played a large role in defeating the water district, which he
saw as necessary to stymie any such scheme.
"It looks more today like a conspiracy than ever before. And, that's not just me saying so, that's
a lot of people who people underestimated as voters in the N 01ih County reading and educating
themselves to that fact. It's only a theory if there's no conspiracy," he said. "Here's what
happened to the water district people-we did .... All of us. We got in their way."
Harvey also sees the looming threat.
"From a precautionary perspective, I'd rather fight against it then let it happen," she said.
Merrill, whose vineyard management company has done work for both Resnick and Tunintine,
suggested these claims were just methods of playing on people's fear.
"The other side was more adept at scaring the living crap out of everybody that there was going
to be water sales and water banking and stealing of water by mischievous forces,'' he said. "They
convinced [voters] that somehow the guys we got together [to propose a water district] were
terrible, nefarious people; you better not vote for them."
And he said it worked.
"I got to give it to them for pulling it off," Menill said.
666
4/16
41
Regardless of why the election went the way it did, it's over now, and people like Luft are
concerned about the future.
"A whole lot of us put our lives into this. And now what?" she asked.
The rocky geology underlying her prope1iy makes aquifer recharge a very slow process, and
people in similar situations to hers have been hit paiiicularly hard by the groundwater basin's
plight. She's already seen one well go dry and has taken several measures to treat water from her
new well because it's pulling up ancient geothermal water with a high concentration of salts.
That water may eventually kill her small, mostly dry-farmed 2-acre vineyard.
It's an ominous sign of where things may be going, with or without a water district.
The view from her prope1iy shows young vineyards crawling up and over several hillsides into
the horizon. Down the road, a sign posted on a fence reads "No Water District." Up the road, a
"for sale" sign went up the day after the election.
"We have a declining basin, that's impacting prope1iy values and our ability to live here," she
said. "People don't want a water district. What's next?"
Contact Staff Writer Jona Kinkade atjkinkade@newtimesslo.com.
4/16
42
SLO County communities get more water from Nacimiento Lake I The Tribune#emlnl=Morning_... Page I of 8
LOCAL
MARCH 17, 2016 8:08 PM
SLO County communities get more water
from Nacimiento Lake
HIGHUGHTS· ............. ····· ·············· ............................. ·
San Luis Obispo City Council votes unanimously to receive its full allocation from
Nacimiento Water Project
Atascadero, Cayucos, Paso Robles and Templeton will also receive additional water
Pipeline has been delivering water 45 miles south to San Luis Obispo from the lake since
2011
G
4/16
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66808907.html
43
CD
3/25/2016
SLO County communities get more water from Nacimiento Lake I The Tribune#emlnl=Morning_... Page 2 of 8
BY CYNTHIA LAMBERT
clambert@thetdbunenews.com
San Luis Obispo and some of its North County neighbors now have access to hundreds of
thousands more gallons of water from Nacimiento Reservoir.
The San Luis Obispo City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to receive its full allocation
from the Nacimiento Water Project, joining other water providers - Atascadero Mutual
Water Co., the city of Paso Robles, and the Templeton Community Services District that had signed a letter in September requesting additional water.
All of the water suppliers in the county with access to Nacimiento have now maxed out
their shares with these latest allocations. The suppliers can use the water to reduce
pressure on other sources such as groundwater, extend water supplies during future
droughts or sell the water as surplus.
The county service area in Cayucos and two new participants - the Bella Vista mobile
home park in Cayucos and Santa Margarita Ranch Mutual Water Co. - have also opted to
purchase an additional allocation of Nacimiento water. On April 19, the San Luis Obispo
County Board of Supervisors will decide whether Cayucos will take its extra share, county
public works Deputy Director Mark Hutchinson said.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented byTeads
4/16
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66808907 .html
44
3/25/2016
Then, acting as the board of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the
supervisors will consider whether to sign contracts with the two new participants and
confirm the five existing partners have met their contractual requirements to obtain the
water.
Since 2011, the 45-mile-long Nacimiento pipeline has been delivering water from the
lake, just west of Paso Robles, to as far south as San Luis Obispo.
The county secured the rights in 1959 to 17,500 acre-feet of water per year from
Nacimiento Lake. The pipeline has the ability to deliver 15, 7 50 acre-feet of water each
year to communities within San Luis Obispo County. The rest of the water is used by
residents around the lake, not pumped through the pipeline.
Until the recent request, the communities had been paying for 11,405 acre-feet of water
a year, leaving a reserve of 6,095 acre-feet. (An acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons, or
enough to generally serve about three households per year.)
""''"'"'''"""""'"''''"" ""'""""''""'"''""'''""'"""""""'""
"""
....
"
...............
"""""'
...
""""
THE REASON OUR CITY IS IN GOOD SHAPE AND ENVIED BY OTHER CITIES IN THE STATE IS WE HAVE
SEVERAL SURFACE SOURCES. I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE HAVE THIS WATER, AND I THINK WE
SHOULD TAKE IT.
San Luis Obispo Councilman Dan Carpenter
Now, that supply will be maxed out. In Paso Robles, use of Nacimiento water would
reduce groundwater pumping and provide one more high-quality water source for city
residents, according to that city's urban water management plan. Additional water "would
allow the city to stabilize future basin well pumping," the plan says.
In San Luis Obispo, the extra 2,102 acre-feet a year of water would be added to the city's
secondary water supply to make up short-term losses during a drought, infrastructure
maintenance or repair, according to a staff report. The water is not considered a source to
serve the city's build-out population as envisioned in its General Plan.
"This water was not considered to actually be added to the primary water supply for the
city," Aaron Floyd, the city's deputy water director, told the council. "If this water was
being used to serve the needs of additional development, it would require additional
(environmental) review."
4/16
httn://www.sanluisobisno.com/news/local/article66808907 .html
45
3/25/2016
But that didn't ease the concerns of several San Luis Obispo residents who have been
seeking reassurance that the city will have enough water to serve its current population of
about 46, 730 residents - much less the 56,686 residents who could live in San Luis
Obispo by 2035 .
.................................................................... .............
,.,
.............................................................. ,,,, ............ .
WE ELECT YOU TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE SERVICES AND WATER TO MAINTAIN US FOR THE REST
OF OUR STAY. ALOT OF US ARE INTENDING TO DIE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE FOR AWHILE,
EVEN AT MY AGE.
San Luis Obispo resident David Brodie
"I recommend we augment our Nacimiento water allocation. This ... will be absolutely
necessary to sustain the existing population," resident Allan Cooper said. "But this
amount of water, without Whale Rock or Salinas (reservoirs), will not be sufficient to
service any additional office, commercial, manufacturing, hospital or public sector
development currently in the pipeline."
"You cannot go on approving all this extra population," San Luis Obispo resident David
Brodie added. "We elect you to make sure we do have services and water to maintain us
for the rest of our stay. A lot of us are intending to die here, so we're going to be here for
a while, even at my age."
Utilities Director Carrie Mattingly told the council that the additional water would give
the city more flexibility.
"If we needed to repair Whale Rock, we would have this in place," she said by way of
example. "At this stage, we're not using it; we don't need to use it. We have plenty of
water for all our sources altogether."
San Luis Obispo has four water sources: the three reservoirs and nonpotable recycled
water.
In 2015, the city had 10,005 acre-feet of water available from those sources and used
about 4,988 acre-feet. Adding the extra Nacimiento water raises the city's total water
supply to 12,107 acre-feet.
4/16
htto://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article66808907 .html
46
3/25/2016
At the city's build-out, with an estimated 5 7,200 people and other anticipated
developments, San Luis Obispo would use 7,330 acre-feet a year, according to the city's
2015 Water Resources Status Report. A community water forum is being planned for
April 21 for residents to learn more about San Luis Obispo's water sources, conservation
and changes to the city's water shortage response plan.
The additional Nacimiento water will cost the city about $75,000 to $107,000 a year,
thanks to savings from refinancing of the water project bond last August and a one-time
payment from the two new project participants, the Bella Vista mobile home park and
Santa Margarita Ranch Mutual Water Co.
"Do you know of any other community in California or anywhere where a water supply
could be secured at a cost of about $50 an acre-foot?" Councilman John Ashbaugh asked
Tuesday.
"No," Floyd replied.
Cynthia Lambert: 805-781-7929, @ClambertSLO
WHERE NACIMIENTO LAKE'S WATER
GOES IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Totals listed are in acre-feet. An acre-foot of water is enough to serve about three households a
year.
Participant
Current
Change
entitlement
New
entitlement
City of Paso Robles
4,000
2,488
6,488
City of San Luis Obispo
3,380
2,102
5,482
Atascadero Mutual Water Co.
2,000
1,244
3,244
Templeton Community Services District
250
156
406
Santa Margarita Ranch Mutual Water Co.
0
80
80
County Service Area 10A (Cayucos)
25
15
40
Bella Vista Mobile Home Park
0
10
10
4/16
http ://www. sanluisobispo .com/news/local/article66808 907 .html
47
3/25/2016
Sort by I Newest
4 Comments
Add a comment ...
Dana Merrill · Owner at Pomar Junction Vineyard
I think the worst part is that there are some new entities who will get water beside the original
partners, but there did not seem to be even discussion about some water being reserved for the
Paso Robles Basin. We are not on anyone's radar, not for getting some water even 1,000-2,000
acre feet to blend with Paso Robles City recycled water.
Maybe it would have been voted down when funding for pipelines to the red zone came up but
maybe users could have paid also as an alternative. Now that option is gone and many who
picked up the extra water won't need it for years if ever. Not even a whimper from anyone in
charge
Like· Reply· Mar 19, 2016 10:25am
Mikki McBride
Is there a dam on that lake? I would hate to see this turn into another Mono Lake. We have to
' send our delta water down south to L.A. and I'm really tired of places building up so huge when
they don't have their own source of water and have to take it from someone else. Close to the
coast, they need to build desalination plants to convert salt water into fresh like they do in the MidEast.
'I
Like· Reply· Mar 18, 2016 6:51pm
Laurie Gage · UCLA
I am objecting to the lack of leadership at the County level for the years leading up to this point.
The Paso Basin is in deep trouble, yet when the FCD has the opportunity to truly represent us and
secure water for the future of the Basin's sustainability, they'd rather let it run south. The City of
SLO now has access to 12,000 plus acre feet, but will only need 7,300 at buildout, or so says the
article. They will be selling the excess, you can be sure of that. 4,500 AF would have gone a long
way to solving the Basin's problems, but the FCD didn't speak up for us. With the Ag Offset
ordinance in place, that water could NOT have gone to expansion of crops, but to benefit all the
overliers.
Like · Reply · Mar 18, 2016 11 :20am
Laurie Gage · UCLA
Once again, "Send it South" should be the FCD's motto when it comes to Nacimiento water. No
effective representation for the Paso Basin means the last of the unallocated Naci water is going
to head everywhere else but the Basin.
Like· Reply·· Mar 18, 2016 6:40am
Lynne Gamble · The University of Texas at Austin
Sour grapes! This would have happened even if the water district had been approved.
Besides, the water will be reserved for people, not used to expand grape planting for
Gallo, Stuart Resnick, and the other corporate growers.
4/16
httn://www.sanluisobisno.com/news/local/article66808907.html
48
1/2~/2016
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA REPORT
April 13, 2016
ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT:
Water Use Rates
G. M. RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt a water rate schedule and drought surcharge per Tables 2 and 3, or Tables 6 and
7, as shown in this staff report, with the new rates and drought surcharge becoming
effective with the billing cycle beginning on May 15, 2016±.
2. Rescind the temporary drought water rates adopted by the Board on May 12, 2015,
effective May 15, 2016±.
PREPARED BY:
John Neil
DISCUSSION:
Background: On November 18, the Board reviewed an updated cash flow forecast that
showed how the reduced water sales that have and are anticipated to occur under the State
conservation mandate, along with other non-routine expenses, will affect year-end fund
balances over the next five years. The Board directed staff to develop a revenue increase and
cost savings plan that would allow AMWC to: 1) offset the revenue reduction resulting from the
State conservation mandate; 2) continue with needed capital investments to the production,
treatment, and distribution facilities; 3) offset the non-routine expenses associated with
defending against the Steinbeck quiet title action; 4) offset the expenses associated with
conforming to the recently adopted SGMA, which includes participation in the formation of a
Groundwater Sustainability Agency and development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan; 5)
comply with the newly imposed National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
requirements for drinking water systems; and 6) maintain year-end fund balances over the next
five years in conformance with NWP bond requirements.
On December 16, 2015, the Board reviewed various rate adjustment and cost savings
alternatives via an interactive spreadsheet, received shareholder input, and provided direction
to staff.
On February 10, 2016, the Board reviewed additional rate adjustment and cost savings
alternatives, discussed deferring certain capital investments, received shareholder input, and
provided further direction to staff. The Board directed staff to develop a rate adjustment
alternative(s) that would stabilize year-end fund balances.
On March 9, 2016, the Board reviewed additional rate adjustment and cost savings
alternatives, discussed deferring certain capital investments, and received shareholder input.
The Board recognized that the current base fees are not sufficient to cover the fixed plant
operating costs, or any of the fixed non-plant operating costs. The Board directed staff to
develop a rate adjustment alternative that would stabilize year-end fund balances primarily
through an increase in the base rate and application of a drought surcharge that can be
rescinded when water use patterns return to pre-drought levels.
State Conservation Mandate: The Governor issued an emergency order and mandated
that urban water users statewide reduce water consumption by 25% co'1ff1't;to 2Cij-glevels
due to the severe drought conditions. The State established a 28% conservation mandate for
AMWC. Water purveyors that do not comply with the State conservation mandate are subject
to a penalty of up to $10,000 per day.
On November 13, 2015, the Governor extended the emergency order through October
31, 2016. The revised order allows the State Water Board to reduce the conservation mandate
for climate, growth, and drought-resilient supply reasons. Staff has investigated the reduction
alternatives and believes AMWC may qualify for the drought-resilient supply reduction because
of its participation in the Nacimiento Water Project. Staff has applied to the State Water Board
for the reduction.
Staff anticipates that it may take years for water sales to rebound, and that the drought
use patterns may remain even after the State conservation mandate is lifted. Staff anticipates
annual water demand will slowly increase over the next five years, primarily due to growth, but
will not likely return to the historical average during that period. The 5-year average annual
demand (2011-2015) is 1, 738 million gallons, and the 10-year average (2006- 2015) is 1,873
million gallons.
Water Sales Revenue and Expenses: Continued conformance to the Governor's
executive order has and will result in water sales far below estimates used to prepare AMWC's
5-year cash flow projection. Water sales revenue for fiscal year ending April 30, 2016, (FY 2016)
is anticipated to be approximately $6.2 million ($6.2M), $700,000 below the sales projection
used in the preparation of the budget. This reduction in revenue is a direct result of the State
conservation mandate. The FY 2016 revenue projection was based on the water sales from FY
2015 ($6.9M), which was $600,000 less than FY 2014 due to AMWC's implementation of a
Stage 2 Water shortage condition and the resulting 15% reduction in water use.
In addition to the reduction in revenue caused by conformance with the State
conservation mandate, AMWC has incurred additional non-routine expenses due to: the hiring
of a part-time water conservation technician; additional outreach and education; State
reporting; additional monitoring of water use to gauge the effectiveness of compliance efforts;
responding to shareholder inquiries and complaints; and investigation and monitoring of
violations of watering restrictions and prohibitions. AMWC has and will incur significant
additional non-routine expenses to comply with the new Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) legislation and for continued legal and expert witness costs
associated with the Steinbeck quiet title action.
Cash Forecast: The year-over-year reduction in water sales revenue caused by
conforming to the State mandate and additional non-routine expenses incurred by AMWC has
and will result in declining year-end fund balances over the next several years if not corrected.
Fund balances are anticipated to fall below the levels needed to comply with NWP bond
requirements and will not be sufficient to fund contingencies and/or respond to emergencies or
natural disasters.
Current Water Rates: Current and temporary drought water rates are shown on Table
1. The temporary drought water rates were adopted in response to the Governor's mandate
that AWMC reduce water consumption by 28% compared to 2013 levels. The drought rates
focused on shareholders whose water use was greater than 25,000 gallons per month. The
drought rates increased water sales revenue by ±2.5% over the rates adopted in April 2012.
4/16
50
Tier
Base
1
2
3
4
5
TABLE 1
Current & Drought Water Rates
Current Water Rates
Drought Water Rates
(adopted 04/03/2012)
(adopted 05/12/2015)
Use
Rate
Tier
Use
Rate
(1,000 gal)
(1,000 gal)
0-2
Base
0-2
$18.00
$18.00
3-12
13-25
$ 2.10
$ 3.25
1
2
26-50
51-75
$ 4.80
3
4
>75
$ 5.50
$6.00
5
6
3-12
13-25
26-50
51-75
$ 2.10
$ 3.25
$5.25
$6.50
75-100
$8.00
>100
$10.00
Notes:
1.
2.
Base rate is for a 5/8" or %" water meter
Rates do not include 15% pumping surcharge
Rate Alternative No. 1: Tables 2 and 3 show a rate adjustment/drought surcharge
alternative based on the direction given to staff at the March 9 Board meeting. This rate
alternative: 1) eliminates the 2,000 gallons of use included in the base fee, 2) reduces the upper
limit of the Tier 1 and lower limit of the Tier 2 use, 3) increases the Tier 5 use rate, and 4)
applies a $2.00/month drought surcharge to all accounts. The changes to the rates are bold
and italicized.
Base fees remain unchanged, except for reductions to the MFR and motel unit rates.
Base fees for MFR and motel units are calculated on a per-unit basis. By eliminating the use
included in the base fee, average water bills for MFR and motels would have increased more
than 15% if per-unit base fees were not adjusted downward. The fees were adjusted
downward so the net increase for these two user classes was approximately 15%
Tables 4 and 5 show how this rate adjustment alternative will affect single-family
residential water bills.
Table 2
Base Fees/Surcharges, Rate Alternative No. 1
Current
Proposed
Included
Included
Use A
Fee
Use
Fee
2
0
$18.00
$18.00
2
0
$18.00
$18.00
2
0
$23.00
$23.00
2
0
$30.00
$30.00
2
0
$46.00
$46.00
2
0
$172.00
$172.00
2
0
$218.00
$218.00
2
0
$344.00
$344.00
2
0
$65.00
$65.00
0
0
$14.00
$14.00
2
$14.00
0
$12.00
8
1
0
MOT
$5.20
$4.00
n/a
n/a
NWP Surcharge c
$2.50
$2.50
n/a
n/a
Drought Surcharge 0
$0.00
$2.00
8
A 1,000 gallon units;
fee and included use per unit; c surcharge per account;
0
surcharge per account, rescind when annual water sales reach 1,6o4r,/G16
Meter Size
%
%
1
1 y,
2
3
4
6>
Hydrant Meter
Fire Line
MFR B
51
Table 3
Water Use Rates, Rate Alternative No. 1
Current
Tier
Rate
Proposed
Use, LL
6
Use, UL
Rate
Use, LL
6
Use, UL
1
$2.10
3
12
$2.10
1
10
2
$3.2S
13
2S
$3.2S
11
2S
3
$4.80
26
so
$4.80
26
so
4
SA
$S.SO
Sl
7S
$S.SO
Sl
7S
$6.00
76
00
$7.00
76
00
AThis tier applies only to SFR;
6
Use in 1,000 gal units
Table 4
Average SFR Monthly Water Bills, Rate Alternative No. 1
Current
Rates
Use
Proposed
Rates A
Increase
10%
1
$20.SO
$24.60
$4.10
2S%
3
$22.60
$28.80
$6.20
SO%
6
$28.90
$3S.10
$6.20
Average
11
$37.30
$46.7S
$7.3S
7S%
12
$41.SO
$SO.OO
$8.SO
90%
21
$67.SO
$76.00
$8.50
Aincludes drought and NWP surcharges
Table 5
Peak SFR Monthly Water Bills, Rate Alternative No. 1
Current
Rates
Use
Alternate
Rates A
Increase
10%
1
$20.SO
$24.60
$4.10
2S%
4
$24.70
$30.90
$6.20
SO%
8
$33.10
$39.30
$6.20
Average
14
$48.00
$S6.SO
$8.SO
7S%
17
$S7.7S
$66.2S
$8.SO
90%
28
$98.lS
$106.6S
$8.SO
Aincludes drought and NWP surcharges
Rate Alternative No. 2: Tables 6 and 7 show a rate adjustment/drought surcharge
alternative based on the direction given to staff at the March 9 Board meeting. This rate
alternative: 1) increases the base fee for all accounts, 2) reduces the upper limit of the Tier 1
and lower limit of the Tier 2 use, 3) increases the Tier 5 use rate, and 4) applies a $2.00/month
drought surcharge to all accounts. The changes to the rates are bold and italicized.
Tables 8 and 9 show how this rate adjustment alternative will affect single-family
residential water bills.
4/16
52
Table 6
Base Fees/Surcharges, Rate Alternative No. 2
Included
Use A
Meter Size
Current
Fee
Proposed
Fee
%
%
2
2
$18.00
$22.00
1
2
$23.00
$28.00
1 Yi
2
$30.00
$36.00
2
2
$46.00
$55.00
3
2
$172.00
$200.00
4
2
$218.00
$260.00
6>
2
$344.00
$400.00
$18.00
$22.00
Hydrant Meter
2
$65.00
$80.00
Fire Line
MFR B
0
$14.00
$16.00
2
$14.00
$16.00
1
$5.20
$5.50
n/a
$2.50
$2.50
MOT
6
NWP Surcharge c
0
n/a
Drought Surcharge
$0.00
$2.00
A 1,000 gallon units; 6 fee and included use per unit; c surcharge per
account; 0 surcharge per account, rescind when annual water sales reach
1,600 MG
Table 7
Water Use Rates, Rate Alternative No. 2
Current
Tier
Use, LL
Rate
1
Proposed
$2.10
6
Use, UL
3
12
Rate
$2.10
Use, LL 6
Use, UL
3
10
2
$3.25
13
25
$3.25
11
25
3
$4.80
26
50
$4.80
26
50
4
5A
$5.50
51
75
$5.50
51
75
$6.00
76
00
$7.00
76
00
AThis tier applies only to SFR;
6
Use in 1,000 gal units
Table 8
Average SFR Monthly Water Bills, Rate Alternative No. 2
Current
Rates
Use
Proposed
Rates A
Increase
10%
1
$20.50
$26.50
$6.00
25%
3
$22.60
$28.60
$6.00
50%
6
$28.90
$34.90
$6.00
Average
11
$37.30
$46.55
$7.15
75%
12
$41.50
$49.80
$8.30
90%
21
$67.50
$75.80
$8.30
A includes drought and NWP surcharges
4/16
53
Table 9
Peak SFR Monthly Water Bills, Rate Alternative No. 2
Current
Rates
Use
Increase
10%
1
$20.50
$26.50
$6.00
25%
4
$24.70
$30.70
$6.00
50%
8
$33.10
$39.10
$6.00
Average
14
$48.00
$56.30
$8.30
75%
17
$57.75
$66.05
$8.30
$98.15
$106.45
$8.30
90%
A
Alternate
Rates A
28
includes drought and NWP surcharges
FISCAL IMPACT:
Table 10 shows the assumptions used in preparing the 5-year cash flow forecasts for the
two rate alternatives described above.
Tables 11 and 12 show how the two rate alternatives affect the 5-year cash flow
forecast. Both rate alternatives will stabilize year-end fund balances and result in year-end
fund balances that will remain in conformance with NWP bond requirements.
The drought surcharge will help offset the revenue reductions caused by decreased
water use under the State mandate. The rate adjustments will offset additional non-routine
expenses being incurred for complying with SGMA legislation, legal and expert witness costs
associated with the Steinbeck quiet title action, and higher operating expenses resulting from
the NWP and new State regulations.
Based on the 5-year cash flow forecast, the drought surcharge can be rescinded when
annual water sales are on the order of 1.6 billion gallons.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Shareholder Comments
B. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) bill insert
4/16
54
TABLE 10
ASSUMPTIONS
5-YEAR CASH FORECAST
Fiscal Year Ending April 30
Approved
Budget
YTD
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
2/29/2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
ASSUMPTIONS
Water Sales (MG)
1
1,647
1,362
1,370
Water Rate Increase
±10%
Drought Surcharge
$2.00
NWP Surcharge
Connection Fee/EDU
New Connections as EDUs
Total EDUs, year-end
Growth Rate (new connections)
1,600
$2.00
$2.00
~
'°'
I-'
V1
V1
1,700
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
80
75
80
50
50
50
50
14,363
14,358
14,438
14,488
14,538
14,588
14,638
0.56%
0.53%
0.52%
0.35%
0.35%
0.34%
0.34%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
Notes:
5-year avg. annual demand (2011-2015) = 1,738 MG; 10-year avg. (2006 - 2015) = 1,873 MG
1
1,650
$19,600
Inflation
Investment Earnings
1,500
TABLE 11
RATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
5-YEAR CASH FLOW FORECAST
Fiscal Year Ending 04/30
Approved
Budget
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$10,314,000
$7,974,000
$6,103,000
$5,607,000
$5,625,000
$5,440,000
$7,133,000
$6,935,000
$7,566,000
$8,053,000
$8,298,000
$8,543,000
$0
$240,000
$241,000
$241,000
$0
$0
($4,760,160)
($4,959,065)
($5,037,000)
($5,119,000)
($5,202,000)
($5,288,000}
Expenses, NWP operating
{$947,000)
($1,100,000)
($800,000)
($800,000)
($800,000)
($800,000)
Expenses, non-operating
($296,000)
($295,000)
($245,000)
{$195,000)
($145,000)
($145,000)
($2,916,000)
($1,951,200)
($893,000)
($835,000)
($1,010,000)
($905,000)
($1,786,160)
($1,130,265)
$832,000
$1,345,000
$1,141,000
$1,405,000
$1,568,000
$1,568,000
$980,000
$980,000
$980,000
$980,000
Estimated Beginning Cash Balance
Operations
Revenue, water sales, capital, other
Revenue, drought surcharge
Expenses (excludes depreciation)
Capital Investments
Net Income {loss)
Water Resource Development
Revenue, connection fees
$300,000
$300,000
$301,000
$302,000
$303,000
$304,000
($2,422,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
Net Income {loss)
($554,000)
($741,000)
($1,328,000)
($1,327,000)
{$1,326,000)
($1,325,000)
Estimated Year-End Cash Balance
$7,973,840
$6,102,735
$5,607,000
$5,625,000
$5,440,000
$5,520,000
1.25 x NWP Debt Service
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
Days-cash-on-hand
611
449
406
401
382
381
Revenue, NWP surcharge
Expense, NWP debt service
.i::i.
'.....
Capital Investments
O'\
V1
O'\
TABLE 12
RATE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
5-YEAR CASH FLOW FORECAST
Approved
Budget
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$10,314,000
$7,974,000
$6,139,000
$5,682,000
$5,741,000
$5,599,000
$7,133,000
$6,971,000
$8,588,000
$240,000
($4,959,065)
($1,100,000)
($295,000)
($1,951,200)
$8,094,000
$241,000
($5,119,000)
($800,000)
($195,000)
($835,000)
$8,341,000
$0
($4,760,160)
{$947,000)
($296,000)
($2,916,000)
$7,605,000
$241,000
($5,037,000)
($800,000)
($245,000)
($893,000)
$0
($5,202,000)
($800,000)
($145,000)
($1,010,000)
$0
($5,288,000)
($800,000)
($145,000)
($905,000)
($1,786,160)
($1,094,265)
$871,000
$1,386,000
$1,184,000
$1,450,000
$1,568,000
$1,568,000
$980,000
$300,000
$300,000
$301,000
$980,000
$302,000
$980,000
$303,000
$304,000
($2,422,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
($2,609,000)
Net Income (loss)
($554,000)
($741,000)
($1,328,000)
($1,327,000)
($1,326,000)
($1,325,000)
$7,973,840
$6,138,735
$5,682,000
$5,741,000
$5,599,000
$5,724,000
Days-cash-on-hand
$3,261,250
611
$3,261,250
452
$3,261,250
412
$3,261,250
409
$3,261,250
393
$3,261,250
395
Operations
Capital Investments
Net Income (loss)
~
...en
.........
V1
.......
$980,000
Capital Investments
ATTACHMENT A
SHAREHOLDER COMMENTS
4/16
58
John Neil
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Edmond Temple
Monday, March 28, 2016 10:49 AM
John Neil
Water rates
Hi John,
It is ironic that when water companies have to reduce supply due to drought they also typically need to raise their rates
to offset the revenue shortfall. I believe I have been present at all the Board discussions regarding a rate raise since they
began last fall. As I am leaving for NM shortly and will miss the next Board meeting, here is my two-cents about the
proposed water rate increases.
I support a 15% rate increase. I support increasing the base cost and tweaking the rates upward for the heavy users.
do not agree with the public comments about slowing down and/or extending the maintenance cycles (you pay for that
in the end) nor do I agree with the suggestion that cost savings could be found in personnel cuts or costs. Also I would
like to suggest that the Board consider a temporary (say a dollar-a-month) legal surcharge to reflect the cost of the legal
challenges the Water Company is facing. The Water Mutual I am a member of in NM used this to help fund their legal
costs in a law suit that is now over 40 years old!
Regards,
Edmond Temple
1
4/16
59
llECEllrED
MAR 10 2016
A..ztt.w~c
To--W~lt/\'1o.1J ~w.
I ~ ~y ~of~~ 60"0-Yd-/\'1~ ifM4, ~
~~to--~ y.w~ ~e..-OJ/- ~I ~~to--~
T~efore..-, I lM'IN
wrV/iM-9 °" ~ V\.Off; to-- ~e..- wVfW yo-w ~
~"'-¥~ ~ T~ ~ ~ ~~e.d-OJ#-~
~·
FiK,S1f-,
we-~~~ M4"" Wf).l/W ~
tlt-~M-- ~
te.w Wf).l/W
wUL
~ r~ ~to--~
~ ~.I ~ ~ .sfiJL ~~to-
~ ~~ Wf).l/W fy~~~
W~we- ~ Uk.e..-yo-wto--~
w,
~~~~
~~ ~~ ~e..-, ~01.-4"" Wf).l/W r~~~ ~ ~
r~~~4J~~e..-~~ We..-~~ifM4,~
01)re,uA., ~ ~ $<M'Vfrµ f\'1o.,y9o.,yi;fo..- ~ ~ ~
foM-".
$~, we-~~~ 01.-4"" ~~yb"W 01.-4"" ~{)(.e.yy,
~ ~ p~ R~, ~
or~ we-~
Jl\.Cf ~~to--~ 01.-4""
Jl\.Cf ~
Wf).l/W ~
~ 01.-4"" Wf).l/W to--~
4/16
60
John Neil
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lee Serpa
Friday, March 11, 2016 12:49 PM
John Neil
Re: Water Rates
Mr. Neil ... how kind of you to reply to my letter. We really appreciate your information and
taking time from your busy schedule to bring us up to date.
Sounds like all my questions were answered at the meeting. Had every intention of attending
but an emergency came up just prior to my leaving.
Again, thank you for your prompt attention to our inquiry. We are satisfied with how you and
the board are handling the problems of our district.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann & Leroy Serpa
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:37 PM, John Neil <jneil@amwc.us> wrote:
Mary Anne,
I'm received you letter yesterday. It's unfortunate that you could not attend Wednesday's meeting. A lot of good
information was presented and public comment received.
The attached will provide some background on our need to increase rates. The direction I received from the Board last
Wednesday would be to have a portion of the rate increase show up as a drought surcharge, which would be removed
if the State eliminates its mandatory rebate and water use returns to more normal levels.
We had something similar happen back in 1990 and rates were increased due to high levels of concentration, among
other reasons. The rates were reduced once water sales began returning to more normal levels.
Before the current drought, AMWC would produce approximately 2 billion gallons of water on an annual basis. In
2016, we produced 1.6 billion gallons. In 2015 production reduced to 1.3 billion gallons.
Water systems have large, ongoing and fixed operating and maintenance expenses that are incurred even if no water is
delivered. These costs are not fully captured in the minimum monthly fee charged by AMWC; so large reductions in
water use have a significant impact on revenue.
With regard to selling water outside the Atascadero Basin. To my knowledge there is no activity occurring in this
regard. AMWC and Templeton are working hard to get the Department of Water Resources to declare the Atascadero
Basin a separate basin from the Paso Basin. We are.also working diligently on developing a groundwater sustainability
plan for the Atascadero basin.
I will include your letter as an attachment to my staff report on water rates for the next Board meeting, which is on
April 13.
Respectfully,
John B. Neil, PE
General Manager
Atascadero Mutual Water Co.
4/16
61
5005 EL CAMINO REAL •
P.O. BOX 6075 • ATASCADERO, CA 93423 • (805) 466·2428
ESTABLISHED 1913
Water Rate Increase FAQs
Why is a rate increase needed?
There has been a significant reduction in water sales revenue over the past two years. The reduction is
the result of customers conforming to the 28% conservation mandate imposed on AMWC by the State. Water
purveyors that do not comply with the State's conservation mandate are subject to a penalty of up to $10,000 per
day. The Governor recently extended the conservation mandate through October 31, 2016.
AMWC has also incurred significant, non-routine expenses for defending itself in the Steinbeck quiet title
action (a lawsuit initiated by Steinbeck et. al. over water rights in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin),
conforming to the new Sustainable Groundwater Management Act legislation, and conforming to the revised and
more stringent National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements for water flushed/discharged from
water distribution systems.
How much will the rates increase?
Water rates need to be adjusted to achieve a 15% increase in water sales revenue to offset the reduction
in revenue created by the State conservation mandate and increase revenue for additional, non-routine expenses
being incurred. The average bill for a single-family residential customer will increase by about $6.00 per month.
The rate increase will stabilize AMWC's declining cash reserves at the level needed to comply with
Nacimiento Water Project bond requirements, fund contingencies, and respond to emergencies or natural
disasters.
When was the last rate increase?
Current water rates became effective on April 18, 2012.
How do AMWC's rates compare to other water purveyors?
AMWC currently has the lowest water rates in the county, even though it operates the largest and most
complex water system in the county. See the reverse side for a chart that shows how AMWC's rates compare
with other water purveyors.
What has AMWC done to offset this loss of revenue?
AMWC is always looking for ways to make its operations more efficient. Over the past several years,
staffing levels have been reduced from 28 to 21 full-time employees, and only those capital investments needed
for the repair and rehabilitation of the water system are being programmed in the near term. Other capital
investments are being deferred.
Why is AMWC's State-mandated conservation standard higher than that of other cities?
The State adopted a "one size fits" all policy with regard to municipal water purveyors. It did not consider
the large lot sizes in Atascadero (1.5 acre average). The State took the unreasonable approach of comparing
AMWC's per capita water use with other cities in San Luis Obispo County, that consist of small lots typical of urban
areas and do not have gardens, vineyards, orchards, or livestock.
The State did not take into account AMWC's drought-resilient supplemental water supply (i.e. the
Nacimiento Water Project) when imposing its conservation mandate. AMWC has submitted several protests to
the State requesting that it reduce the conservation standard to no avail.
4/16
62
CENTRAL COAST AREA
COMPARABLE COST OF WATER
BASED ON 11,220 GALLONS/MONTH (1,500 CF/MONTH)
AS OF JANUARY 1, 2016
~~
$160.00
-.."'
~
$140.00
$120.00
-I
= $100.00
m
~
:c
.....
z
0
$80.00
~~
~<y
-I
;:-;
0
....
..,..
~
::E
,..IO
.....
······· {:,~·.
.
~ro
fo·
~~
<;,'°
~~
- ~~
.
~
$60.00
$40.00
$20.00
~
.........
.....
°'
°'w
$0.00
~
t;-0
v..:s
~v
~
~o~
00
ot?
-::,..0
"-0~~
~
<?...._o
~0
~
#
~~
0
~
0
~
-~'li-
~~
~
~~
f?f
~
0
~
-~
<?.
~
<Q0
~
,:,.0
(Jo·
*Atascadero - Includes $2.50/month NWP Surcharge
**Grover Beach - Includes a 1 % utility tax applied to the water portion of the bill
***SLO - Includes a 5% utility users tax applied to the water portion of the bill
~~
~
'li-
0
~~
(j
0
"l>'?
o~
~--
~
&~"l>
-::,..0
<?.
-§~
~
"l>
<":::>"l>~
......
<Q"l>~
~..._o
~o
v
<":::> ·
o·
April 13, 2016
ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT:
Budget, fiscal year ending April 30, 2017
Approve the budget for fiscal year ending April 30, 2017, per Attachment A
PREPARED BY:
John Neil
DISCUSSION:
Water Sales: For FY 2017, staff estimates water sales will be nearly equal to FY 2016,
due to the State conservation mandate. For the succeeding four years, staff forecasts water
sales will continue to be lower than the historical average due to changes in water use patterns
resulting from the drought. The 5-year average annual demand (2011-2015} is 1,738 million
gallons, and the 10-year average (2006 - 2015} is 1,873 million gallons.
Water Rates and Drought Surcharge: Staff assumed that a combination of a water rate
increase and drought surcharge would be used to achieve the ±15% revenue increase needed
to maintain year-end fund balances at the levels needed to comply with NWP bond
requirements and to fund contingencies and/or respond to emergencies or natural disasters.
Staff assumed a monthly drought surcharge of $2.00 per account. It was assumed the
drought surcharge would remain in effect until water sales increase to 1.6 billion gallons
(forecast to be in FY 2019}.
The table below summarizes the operating revenue assumptions.
Water Sales
Approved
Budget
FY 2016
Year-end
Estimate
FY 2016
Proposed
Budget
FY 2017
Forecast
FY 2018
Forecast
FY 2019
Forecast
FY 2020
Forecast
FY 2021
1,370
1,500
1,600
1,650
1,700
Demand Increase
(decrease)
0.6%
9.5%
6.7%
3.1%
3.0%
Water Rate Increase
±10%
Monthly Drought
Surcharge
$2.00
$2.00
$2.00
$6,647,000
$7,278,000
$7,763,000
$8,006,000
$8,249,000
$240,000
$241,000
$241,000
Demand (MG)
Water Sales Revenue
Drought Surcharge
Revenue
1,647
$6,839,000
1,362
$6,005,000
4/16
64
WRDR Revenue: Staff does not anticipate there will be a need to increase connection
fees over the next five years, since the cost of developing new water resources is fixed at this
time (i.e. debt service for the NWP).
WRD Revenue
Approved
Budget
FY 2016
Year-end
Estimate
FY 2016
Proposed
Budget
FY 2017
Forecast
FY 2018
Forecast
FY 2019
Forecast
FY 2020
Forecast
FY 2021
85
83
80
50
50
50
50
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
Connection Fee Revenue
$1,372,000
$1,626,800
$1,568,000
$980,000
$980,000
$980,000
$980,000
NWP Surcharge Revenue
$307,000
$305,000
$305,000
$307,000
$308,000
$310,000
$311,000
Meter Sales (as EDUs)
Connection Fee/EDU
EDU = Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Wages: Administrative employee wage increases are based on merit. Union employee
wage increases consist of a minimum increase of 2% plus a merit component of up to 4%. Pay
increases take into account cost of living, promotions, and job performance. For budgeting
purposes, the average pay increase over the next fiscal year is estimated at 3%.
Health Insurance: Staff has been advised by AMWC's health insurance broker, Morris &
Garritano, that health insurance premiums will increase by approximately 5%. There was no
increase in premiums in FY 2016.
Energy Expenses: Natural gas and electricity make up about 26% of the normal plant
operating expenses. Staff anticipates that energy costs in FY 2017 will be lower than FY 2016,
since well levels are anticipated to be higher through the summer season due to this year's
rains. In future years, the California Energy Commission anticipates that energy rates will
increase at a faster rate than the rate of inflation.
Nacimiento Water Project: Both debt service and operating costs are expected to
increase in FY 2017. Debt service will increase due to the project participants taking their prorata share of the reserve capacity water from the project. Operating expenses will increase
due to the higher variable energy costs resulting from higher overall water deliveries
anticipated in FY 2017. Operating expenses will also increase as a result of Monterey County
performing deferred maintenance on the San Antonio Dam while water levels were low. These
costs are passed on to the SLO County Flood Control and Water Conservation District under the
Master Water Contract with Monterey County. The Master Water Contract requires the Flood
Control District to pay approximately 36% of the annual operation and maintenance costs of
the San Antonio Dam and reservoir.
Water System Repairs: Water system repairs make up about 13% of the plant operating
expenses. Some of these expenses are preventative maintenance and can be anticipated,
while others are in response to situations outside of AMWC's control. The budget figure for
these repairs is based on historical trends.
4/16
65
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: Continued expenditures are anticipated
for the efforts needed to prepare an application to the Department of Water Resources for a
basin boundary modification, coordinate the formation of a Groundwater Sustainability
Agency, and develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Atascadero Basin.
Steinbeck Quiet Title Action: Continued expenditures are anticipated for legal fees
associated with AMWC's defense in the Steinbeck quiet title action.
Capital Investments: Staff is has included the capital investment projects shown on.
Attachment C for inclusion in the budget for FY 2017.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approved
Budget
Proposed
Budget
2016
2017
$10,314,000
$7,974,000
$7,133,000
$6,935,000
$0
($4,760,160)
$240,000
($4,959,065)
($1,100,000)
Operations
($947,000)
($296,000)
($2,916,000)
($1,951,200)
($1,786,160)
($1,130,265)
$1,568,000
$1,568,000
$300,000
($2,422,000)
($2,609,000)
($554,000)
($741,000)
Capital Investments
Net Income (loss)
($295,000)
$300,000
Capital Investments
Net Income (loss)
$7,973,840
$6,102,735
$3,261,250
$3,261,250
Days-cash-on-hand
611
449
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proposed Budget
B. 5-year Forecast
C. 5-year CIP
D. Detailed Budget
4/16
66
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED BUDGET, FYE 04/30/2017
Description
Budget
YTD
Proposed
2016
a/o 02/29/16
2017
Revenue
6,839,000
Drought Surcharge
5,089,034
6,647,000
0
74,000
240,000
63,553
71,000
5,000
2,062
2,000
Rental Income
141,000
131,548
141,000
Service Income
26,000
18,609
25,000
5,000
8,819
7,000
40,000
28,055
40,000
Interest Income
0
2,750
0
1,568,000
1,705,700
1,568,000
300,000
260,431
300,000
3,000
13,678
10,000
9,001,000
7,324,240
9,051,000
Total
Plant Operations Expenses
1,215,000
988,272
1,229,000
(243,000)
(192,182)
(195,000)
Employee benefits
412,000
299,683
374,200
Accrued Sick Leave expense
0
16,000
0
15,779
161,000
Insurance
45,000
27,939
40,000
Utility charges
10,000
7,926
11,000
529,000
442,228
508,000
21,000
19,301
20,200
143,000
Outside services
17,000
Other expense
150,000
106,775
875,000
619,935
3,030,000
2,335,656
745,000
593,256
735,000
(7,000)
(3,258)
0
166,000
121,578
166,065
0
4,893
141,250
Total
830,000
3,138,400
Non-Plant Operations Expenses
Employee benefits
0
3,600
5,050
29,000
18,942
25,000
13,000
9,355
11,000
Property Taxes
50,000
54,563
70,000
48,500
27,993
41,800
317,100
231,835
283,600
44,000
62,147
42,000
Insurance
Utility charges
Outside services
Other expense
192,960
94,552
172,000
128,000
97,362
1,730,160
1,313,219
127,500
1,820,265
Total
4/16
67
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED BUDGET, FYE 04/30/2017
Description
Budget
YTD
Proposed
2016
a/o 02/29/16
2017
Income Tax Expense
15,000
12,750
15,000
31,000
26,985
30,000
2,422,000
1,882,863
2,609,000
NacmientoWater Project 0 & M
947,000
933,813
1,100,000
250,000
283,124
120,000
19,475
130,000
1,010,000
5,014,000
NacmientoWater Project Debt Service
SGMA Compliance
Depreciation Expense
1,060,000
1,034,221
4,725,000
4,193,231
Revenue Total
9,001,000
7,324,240
Expense Total
9,485,160
7,842,106
Net Income
(484,160)
Total
9,051,000
9,972,665
(517,866)
4/16
(921,665)
68
ATTACHMENT B. 5-YEAR CASH FORECAST
Proposed
Approved
Budget
YTD
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
2/29/2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
ASSUMPTIONS
Water Sales (MG)
1
1,647
1,362
1,370
Water Revenue Increase
10.4%
Drought Surcharge
$2.00
NWP Surcharge
Connection Fee/EDU
New Connections as EDUs
Total EDUs, year-end
Growth Rate (new connections)
BEGINNING FUND BALANCES
1,600
$2.00
$2.00
1,650
1,700
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$2.50
$19,600
80
14,363
$19,600
75
14,358
$19,600
80
14,438
$19,600
$19,600
$19,600
50
14,488
$19,600
50
14,538
50
14,638
0.56%
0.53%
0.52%
0.35%
0.35%
50
14,588
0.34%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
2.00%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
0.25%
Inflation
Investment Earnings
1,500
0.25%
0.25%
10,314,000
0.25%
0.34%
7,974,000
6,103,000
5,607,000
5,625,000
5,440,000
5,089,034
6,639,000
7,269,000
7,754,000
7,996,000
8,238,000
Revenue
Operating Revenue, Water Sales
0
0
240,000
241,000
241,000
0
0
74,000
5,000
63,553
2,062
71,000
71,000
71,000
71,000
71,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Rental Income
141,000
131,548
141,000
144,000
147,000
150,000
153,000
Service Income
26,000
18,609
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
Interest Income
8,000
22,498
17,000
15,000
14,000
14,000
14,000
40,000
28,055
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
0
2,750
0
0
0
0
0
1,568,000
1,705,700
1,568,000
980,000
980,000
980,000
980,000
Drought Surcharge
Service Charges
Misc Operating Revenue
~
'......
O'\
O'\
\D
6,839,000
Connection Fees
Nacimiento Surcharge Fees
Total Revenue
300,000
260,431
300,000
301,000
302,000
303,000
304,000
9,001,000
7,324,240
9,043,000
9,088,000
9,576,000
9,581,000
9,827,000
ATTACHMENT B, 5-YEAR CASH FORECAST
Proposed
Approved
Budget
2016
YTD
2/29/2016
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Plant OE!erations ExE!enses
1,215,000
988,272
1,229,000
1,254,000
1,279,000
1,305,000
1,331,000
(243,000)
(192,182)
{195,000)
(199,000)
(203,000)
{207,000)
{211,000)
412,000
299,683
374,200
382,000
390,000
398,000
406,000
0
16,000
0
15,779
161,000
164,000
167,000
170,000
173,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
Insurance
45,000
27,939
40,000
41,000
42,000
43,000
44,000
Utility charges
10,000
7,926
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
529,000
442,228
508,000
510,000
510,000
510,000
510,000
21,000
19,301
20,200
21,000
21,000
21,000
21,000
Employee benefits
Outside services
Other expense
150,000
106,775
143,000
146,000
149,000
152,000
155,000
875,000
619,935
830,000
847,000
864,000
881,000
899,000
3,030,000
2,335,656
3,138,400
3,194,000
3,247,000
3,301,000
3,356,000
745,000
593,256
780,000
796,000
Total Plant Expenses
Non-Plant OE!erations ExE!enses
735,000
750,000
765,000
{7,000)
{3,258)
0
0
0
121,578
166,465
0
170,000
0
166,000
173,000
176,000
180,000
0
3,600
0
141,250
144,000
147,000
150,000
153,000
4,893
5,050
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Insurance
29,000
18,942
25,000
26,000
27,000
28,000
29,000
Utility charges
13,000
9,355
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
Property Taxes
50,000
54,563
70,000
71,000
72,000
73,000
74,000
48,500
27,993
41,800
42,000
42,000
42,000
42,000
317,100
231,835
283,600
289,000
295,000
301,000
307,000
44,000
62,147
42,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
40,000
192,960
94,552
172,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
180,000
Employee benefits
~
'°".....
.......
0
Outside services
Other expense
Total Non-plant Expenses
128,000
97,362
127,500
115,000
115,000
115,000
115,000
1,730,160
1,313,219
1,820,665
1,843,000
1,872,000
1,901,000
1,932,000
ATTACHMENT B, 5-YEAR CASH FORECAST
Approved
Grand Total Operating Expenses
Proposed
Budget
YTD
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
2/29/2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
4,760,160
3,648,876
15,000
12,750
31,000
2,422,000
26,985
1,882,863
4,959,065
5,037,000
5,119,000
5,202,000
5,288,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
15,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
30,000
2,609,000
2,609,000
2,609,000
1,100,000
120,000
800,000
100,000
2,609,000
800,000
250,000
933,813
283,124
2,609,000
800,000
Non-O~erating Ex~ense
Income Tax Expense
NWP Debt Service
NWPO&M
947,000
19,475
3,665,000
3,159,010
130,000
4,004,000
3,654,000
50,000
3,604,000
50,000
3,554,000
50,000
3,554,000
Grand Total Expenses
8,425,160
6,807,885
8,963,065
8,691,000
8,723,000
8,756,000
8,842,000
Depreciation
1,060,000
1,034,221
1,010,000
1,030,000
1,051,000
1,072,000
1,093,000
Capital Investments
2,916,000
1,768,896
1,951,200
893,000
835,000
1,010,000
905,000
Days-Cash-on-Hand
2
3
100,000
7,973,840
8,015,000
6,102,735
5,607,000
5,625,000
5,440,000
5,520,000
3,261,250
3,261,250
3,261,250
3,261,250
3,261,250
3,261,250
3,261,250
611
802
401
382
381
449
~
......
.....
50,000
0
'
800,000
50,000
SGMA Compliance
Total Non-op Expenses
YEAR-END FUND BALANCES
.....
~
100,000
Notes:
=1,738 MG; 10-year avg (2006- 2015) =1,873 MG
1
5-year avg annual demand (2011-2015)
2
Excludes depreciation
3
Year-end fund balance/grand total operating expenses
406
ATTACHMENT C
5-YEAR CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM, FYE 04/30/2017
Class
Year
No.
Description
Asset Management System Software l
Approved
Budget
YTD
Year-end
Projection
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
02/24/16
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
$15,000
AC
14
103
AC
14
030C
AC
15
201
AC
15
203
Emergency Pump Purchase, large boo:
AC
15
402
Hwy 41 @ Los Altos Main Upgrade
AC
16
100
Booster Improvement Program
AC
16
101
San Gabriel Check & Surge Anti~ipate,r
$9,000
AC
16
102
Summit Hills Renew Service Pump Pi pi
$13,000
AC
16
103
ECR @ Santa Barbara Relief Valve Autc
Storage Bldg Roll-up Doors
$930
$140,000
$140,000
$30,000
PRV Telemetry System
----
$930
$215,000
$30,000
$215,000
$23,525
$8,000
$23,525
$~,118
$8,118
--,~~,
3~
$20,000
16
200
Generator Replacement, 350kV (AB
16
201
Air Compressor Replacements
AC
16
202
Shoring Jack Purchase
AC
16
203
Emergency~Water
AC
16
204
NOPES Compliance Equipment
AC
16
205
Financi~l/Payroll/CIS Software Replace
AC
16
206
Boring Tool Replacement
AC
16
207
Office, Misc Equipment
$2,000
Office, Furniture Purchases
$2,000
$432
$1,000
Board R()()rl1 EguipmentUpgrades
$8,500
$8!360
}~,360
$7,000
$835
$2,000
Main
$193,000
$20,000
AC
$205,452
$150,000
$5,000
$7,500
$660
$660
$15,000
$3,057
$4,000
$375,000
$217,3Q8
$260,000
$8,000
$10,264
$10,264
16
208
AC
16
. 209
AC
16
210
Computer Upgrades
AC
16
212
Shop Misc. Tool & Equipment
AC
16
300
Fence Construction
AC
16
301
Random Oaks Landscaping
$10,000
AC
16
303
Flow Meter Replacements
$10,000
AC
16
304
Gold Finch Misc Improvements
$2,000
16
16
305
San Jacinto Misc Improvements
$2,000
306
Shop Sign
AC
16
400
Main Upgrade Program
AC
16
401
Capistrano @ Mercedes, valve install
$15,000
AC
16
402
PRV removal, 7700 Balboa
$75,000
AC
$205,452
$150,000
AC
AC
$400,000
$4,000
AC
AC
Deferred
$115,000
$500
$30!000
"'
N
$15,000
$5,000
$5,000
$3,000
$100,000
$10,000
$19,949
$20,000
$3,918
$3,918
$135,269
$150,QOO
.$75,000
ATIACHMENTC
Class
Approved
Budget
YTD
Year-end
Projection
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
02/24/16
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Description
Year
No.
AC
16
403
Bordeaux Apts 2" Service Upgrade
$40,000
AC
16
404
Dolores ljpgrade 2400' of 4" main
$260,000
AC
16
405
Hydrant Upgrade Program
$35,000
$44,356
$50,000
AC
16
406
Valve Replacement Program
$60,000
$142,927
$150,000
$260~000
16
407
Hydrant Installation Program
$25,000
$22,783
$25,000
16
408
Air-vac Installation Pro15ram
$15,000
.. $22,815
$22,815
AC
16
409
Service Replacement Program
$150,000
$403,491
$450,000
AC
16
410
Santa Ana Tank Reroute pump line
$180,000
$213,396
$213,396
AC
16
411
PRV Upgrade Program
$200,000
AC
16
412
Service Installation Program
$25,000
$41,923
$50,000
$13,352
$15,000
$85,812
$90,000
$25,170
$25,170
$22,738
$22,738
AC
16
500
SCADA Equipment Upgrades
$6,000
AC
16
502
SCADAServer Replacement
$5,000
AC
16
510
SCADA OS & Alarm Software Upgrade
AC
16
600
Reservoir Improvement Program
AC
16
601
Summit Hills Fire Pump VFD
AC
16
602
Santa Ana Dormer Vent Expanded Me·
$6,000
16
603
Pine Mt. Dormer Vent Expanded Meta
$6,000
$90,000
$5,000
$8!000
$15,000
Random Oaks Paint Tank Exterior
AC
16
Random Oaks FH DI Drain Line
$8,872
$8,872
AC
16
Random Oaks Road Asphalt Patching
$8,814
$8,814
AC
16
700
16
16
701
Unit 12 Replacement
$45,000
800
Well 3A & 5 Construct Basin & Rerout1
$18,000
$25,871
$25,871
16
801
Emmission Equipment Upgrade
$53,000
$10,171
$719
...... $~9?.171
$5,000
$30,553
$30,553
AC
AC
.a:::i..
AC
'....°"
AC
.......
AC
w
AC
Unit 4 Replacement
$40,000
16
802
Flow Meter Replacement Program
$15,000
16
803
Well 16 New Motor & Headshaft
16
16
804
Well Improvement Program
$.19,0QO
$30,000
805
Well 2A Re-sheet Well Building.
AC
16
806
Well 4 Inner sleeve and new pump
AC
17
100
Booster Improvement Program
$8,000
AC
17
110
San Gabriel Pilot System Replacement (2)
$6,000
AC
Deferred
$5,000
$5,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
ATTACHMENT C
Year
Class
No.
Description
Approved
Budget
YTD
Year-end
Projection
Proposed
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
02/24/16
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
AC
17
200
Shop, l\llis.c. Tool &.Equipment
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
$15,000
AC
17
211
Acoustic Leak Detector Purchase
$15,000
AC
17
210
Office Misc Equipment Purchases
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
AC
17
220
Office Furniture Purchases
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
AC
17
230
Computer Upgrades & Replacements
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
AC
17
231
Board Rm, dual monitor & conference audio
$1,200
AC
17
232
Software l)pgrade (valve & hydrant operations) ....
$6,000
AC
17
300
Land Improvement Program
AC
17
301
Fence Construction
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
$5,000
AC
17
302
Gold Finch Misc Improvements
AC
17
303
San Jacinto Misc Improvements
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
$2,000
AC
17
304
Storm Water Basin Modification
$35,000
AC
17
400
Main Upgrade Program
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
AC
17
401
West Mall Main Upgrade
AC
17
402
Cenegal Rd Main Extention
AC
17
410
Hydrant Upgrade Program
AC
17
420
Valve Replacement Program
AC
17
430
Hydrant Installation Program
AC
17
AC
17
440 ... Air-vac Installation Program
450 Service Replacement Program
AC
17
460
Service Installation Pr()gram
AC
17
500
SCADA Equipment Upgrades
Data Cone. & 173 mhz Sites Upgrades
AC
'17·
t-1 17
510
600
Reservoir Improvement Program
AC
0'\17
610
Earthquake Analysis - 4 Tanks
AC
17
611
Pine Mt. Cl2 Dechlorination Vault
17
17
800
WelLlmprovement Program
801
Flow Meter Replacement Program
$20,990
$10,000
17
810
Emission Equipment Upgrade
$28,000
-~
~··~·
·---··-
Pro~ram
$5,000
$2,000
$75,000
$200,000
$80,000
~·
AC
AC
AC
AC
4:ai
.......
. 4:ai
•
•
•
•
•
•
>
•
$50,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$35,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$50,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
.. $~0,000
$300,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$200,000
$25,000
. }25!000
$25,000
$25,000
$25,000
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
$6,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$8,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
·>~-",
"
'
$6,000
, ••
$250,000
$8,000
.-~~··-·
$5Q,OQO
----
$20,000
AC
17
811
Well 10 Discharge Line Extension
$15,000
AC
17
812
Discharge Line Modifications
$25,000
Deferred
ATTACHMENT C
Class
Year
--
Backhoe & Loader Replacements (A,~ 32).
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
.i::a.
....
.........
CS"\
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
Description
San Gabriel Pressure Relief Valve
AC
AC
No.
Approved
Budget
2016
"""J
V1
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
20
21
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
SCADA Laptop Replacement
Replace PLC's & HM l's
Pine Mountain Repaint Steel Roof
SA Pump & Motor Replacement
Summit Hills Replace Hydro Tank
Unit 3 Replacement
Unit 17 Replacement
PRV Upgrade Program
Main/RO Zone Booster
Random Oaks Booster Upgrade
Pinal Ave Construct New Booster Station
Summit Hills Boosterl)pgr~de
Random Oaks Booster Upgrade
Toloso Booster Upgrade
Build Emergency Pump
Hydrant Maintenance Paint Sprayer
Weather Station Purchase
Emergen.cy Pump Purchase, small boosters
Well 13A Access Rd Improvements
Shop Drainage Improvements
Portola, abandon 4 11 main, relocate services
Pinal Booster to Pinal Ave main extension
Isolation Valve Upgrade Program
Sm,il.~y~lace Main Upgrade
Entrada Ave Main Upgrade
Lewis Ave Main Upgrade
Bajada Upgrade 1700' of 4 11 main
Santa Cruz @ Graves Creek Main Extension
Ash/Maple/Catalpa Main Upgrade
YTD
02/24/16
Year-end
Projection
2016
Proposed
Budget
2017
Forecast
2018
$15,000
... ··~ $110,000
$3,000
$140,000
$30,000
$15,000
Forecast
2019
Forecast
2020
Forecast
2021
Deferred
$110,000
$140,000
$120,000
$30,000
$40,000
$45,000
$200,000
$200,000
$325,000
$250,000
$400,000
$250,000
$100,000
$350,000
$160,000
$5,000
$10,000
$100,000
$50,000
$35,000
$150,000
$200,000
$20,000
$420,000
$200,000
$150,000
$200,000
$100,000
$500,000
ATTACHMENT C
Year-end
Proposed
Budget
YTD
Projection
Budget
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
2016
02/24/16
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Approved
Year
Class
99
99
99
16
17
AC
AD
AD
No.
Description
San Carlos Alt Control & Check Valves
Fork lift replacement
Plan Check & Inspection Services
'°'.....
........
°'
$10,000
$5,887
$6,000
$2,916,000
$1,768,896
$1,925,127
Plan Check & Inspection Services
TOTAL
~
$120,000
$750,000
$80,000
Eagle Ranch New Tank
100
100
Deferred
$10,000
$1,951,200
$10,000
$891,000
$10,000
$833,000
$10,000
$1,008,000
$10,000
$903,000
$5,675,000
ATTACHMENT D
DETAILED BUDGET, FYE 04/30/2017
Account
Category
Description
Approved Budget
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2016
2/29/2016
2017
Revenue
1-00-41110
ROl
M Res Domestic-AMWC
1-00-41699
ROl
Water Sales Adj/leak adjusts
1-00-4410S
RlO
Duplicate Fees Revenue-AMWC
$6,869,000.00
$S,10S,S7S.32
-16,S41.41
$6,677,000.00
-$30,000.00
$12,000.00
12,817.00
$12,000.00
-$30,000.00
$3,000.00
910.00
$3,000.00
$10,000.00
11,8SO.OO
$10,000.00
$1,000.00
780.00
$1,000.00
Late Payment Fee-AMWC
$48,000.00
37,196.00
$4S,OOO.OO
R40
Service lncome-AMWC
$26,000.00
18,608.76
$2S,OOO.OO
$0.00
1-00-44106
RlO
Service charge Hyd mtr Set Up
1-00-44110
RlO
Disconnect Fee-AMWC
1-00-4411S
RlO
Return Check Charge-AMWC
1-00-44120
RlO
1-00-441SO
1-00-44200
R30
Rental Income-Miscellaneous
$0.00
0.00
1-00-4420S
R30
Rental lncome-AT&T-AMWC
$30,000.00
27,844.64
$30,000.00
1-00-44210
R30
Rental lncome-T-Mobile-AMWC
$26,000.00
24,0lS.60
$26,000.00
$36,000.00
1-00-4421S
R30
Rental lncome-Raminha-AMWC
$36,000.00
32,704.00
1-00-44220
R30
Rental Income-Gold Finch-AMWC
$22,000.00
21,47S.OO
$22,000.00
1-00-4422S
R30
Rental Income-Crown Castle-
$27,000.00
2S,S08.86
$27,000.00
1-00-44230
R30
Rental lncome-Metro-PCS-AMWC
1-00-4S110
R80
Connection Fees-AMWC
1-00-4S11S
R60
Meter Installation Fees-AMWC
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$1,S68,000.00
1,70S,700.00
$1,S68,000.00
$40,000.00
28,0SS.OO
$40,000.00
1-00-4S120
R90
Nacmiento Surcharge Fee
$300,000.00
260,431.13
$300,000.00
1-00-4S130
ROS
Drought Surcharge Fees
$0.00
0.00
$240,000.00
1-00-4SSOS
R70
Gain on Sale of land-AMWC
$0.00
R70
Gain on Sale of Equipment-AMWC
$0.00
$0.00
2,7SO.OO
$0.00
1-00-4SS10
1-00-4600S
RSO
Interest Income Ordinary-AMWC
$S,OOO.OO
8,819.26
$7,000.00
1-00-46100
R9S
Interest Income WRDR-AMWC
$3,000.00
13,678.36
$10,000.00
1-00-46390
R20
Misc Non-Operating lncome-AMWC
$S,OOO.OO
1,927.40
$2,000.00
1-00-46399
R20
Discounts Taken-AMWC
$0.00
134.82
$0.00
$9,001,000.00
$7,324,239.74
$9,0Sl,000.00
Total Revenue
Account
Category
Description
$0.00
Approved Budget
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2016
2/29/2016
2017
Expenses
1-02-SllOS
EOl
Salaries & Wages-AMWC-02
1-02-S1106
EOl
Salaries & Wages Projects
$600,000.00
477,S78.70
$S17,000.00
$0.00
167.98
$0.00
$0.00
1-02-S1199
EOS
Labor Contra-AMWC-02
-$S,OOO.OO
-2,274.20
1-02-S1200
EOl
Employer's Payroll Tax Exp-02
$48,000.00
36,278.49
$43,000.00
1-02-S127S
E01
Annual Meeting-Salaries/wages
$3,000.00
316.61
$3,000.00
$8S,OOO.OO
1-02-S130S
ElO
Employee Benefit - Med lns-02
$10S,OOO.OO
73,921.71
1-02-S1310
ElO
Dental Insurance
$0.00
1,784.44
$9,000.00
1-02-S131S
ElO
Vision insurance
$0.00
9S.06
$1,000.00
$2,SOO.OO
2,333.18
$2,SOO.OO
$4S,OOO.OO
33,890.92
$38,000.00
$0.00
0.00
$140,000.00
Health Reimbursemt Acct-02
$8,SOO.OO
S,771.37
$9,000.00
E10
HSA expense-AMWC-Admin-
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-02-S141S
ElS
Employee Retention/Morale--02
$3,000.00
3,9S6.06
$4,000.00
1-02-S142S
EOl
ESQ
Training-Salaries/Wages-02
$6,000.00
6,092.60
$6,000.00
Conf/training-outside services
$6,000.00
7,169.93
$6,000.00
1-02-S1330
ElO
Employee Benefit - WC lns-02
1-02-S133S
ElO
Employee Benefit - Retiremt-02
1-02-S1340
E12
1-02-S13SO
ElO
1-02-S13SS
1-02-S1430
4/16
77
ATTACHMENT D
Account
1-02-51435
1-02-51499
Category
E15
E05
Description
Uniforms-AMWC-02
Overhead Contra-AMWC-02
Approved Budget
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2016
2/29/2016
2017
-$2,000.00
460.59
-983.45
$25,000.00
23,287.91
$500.00
$600.00
$200.00
$0.00
1-02-51605
E01
Temporary Help-AMWC-02
1-02-51610
E15
$0.00
2.50
$100.00
1-02-52105
E40
Safety Program
Equipment Rental/Lease --02
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
1-02-52106
E40
Equipment purchase (IT)
$5,000.00
677.36
2,405.14
1-02-52110
E40
Equipment Maint Services-02
$5,000.00
3,086.45
$3,000.00
1-02-52120
E40
Vehicle Maint Services-02
$7,500.00
3,319.24
$7,500.00
1-02-52130
E40
Building Maint Service-02
$10,000.00
E40
Building Maint Supplies-02
$10,000.00
$0.00
9,886.77
1-02-52135
0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-02-52145
1-02-52165
E40
Repairs Water System
E65
Sales Tax Expense-AMWC-02
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-02-53105
E40
Operating Supplies-AMWC-02
$12,000.00
5,770.51
$8,000.00
1-02-53106
E60
Software Lie & Purchases Exp
$57,660.00
18,526.34
$0.00
1-02-53120
E50
Operating Licenses & Permits
$100.00
0.00
$100.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-02-53130
E60
E25
Inspection & Testing-AMWC-02
lnsurance-AMWC-02
$25,000.00
16,670.74
$22,000.00
1-02-53135
E65
Membership & Dues-AMWC-02
$20,000.00
13,294.92
$15,000.00
1-02-53140
1-02-53145
E50
Marketing and Advertising
$0.00
185.15
$0.00
E60
Publications-AMWC-02
$10,000.00
8,921.49
$10,000.00
1-02-53150
E60
Public Relations-AMWC-02
$300.00
164.05
$0.00
$60,000.00
41,593.53
$60,000.00
1-02-53125
1-02-53160
E60
Postage & Shipping-AMWC-02
1-02-53175
E30
Utility Charges-AMWC-02
$12,000.00
9,030.47
$10,000.00
1-02-53180
E65
Communication Charges-AMWC-02
$30,000.00
17,261.83
$17,000.00
$40,000.00
26,987.11
$36,000.00
1-02-53230
E50
Billing Services-AMWC-02
1-02-53240
E50
Technology Support Services-02
1-02-53245
ESO
Meter Reading Services-AMWC-02
1-02-53260
E50
Professional Services-AMWC-02
1-02-53270
E50
Financial Services-AMWC-02
$59,000.00
30,396.07
$0.00
$160,000.00
127,497.86
$160,000.00
$50,000.00
38,279.50
$50,000.00
$1,000.00
703.90
$2,000.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
1-02-53275
E65
1-02-53295
E35
Election Services-AMWC-02
Property Taxes-AMWC-02
$50,000.00
652.43
54,562.83
1-02-53300
E65
Government Fees-AMWC-02
$1,000.00
2,756.62
$1,000.00
$65,000.00
55,749.49
$70,000.00
$2,000.00
1,356.17
1,318.39
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$0.00
$88,000.00
1-02-53310
E65
1-02-53315
E65
Credit card processing fees
Bad Debt Expense-AMWC-02
1-02-53990
E65
Miscellaneous-AMWC-02
$70,000.00
$2,000.00
1-03-51105
E01
$0.00
1-03-51106
E01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-51110
E40
1-03-51199
E05
1-03-51200
E01
Employer's Payroll Tax Exp-03
1-03-51275
E01
Annual Meeting-Salaries/wages
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$0.00
$500.00
1-03-51305
E10
Employee Benefit - Med lns-03
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-51310
E10
Dental Insurance
$0.00
$0.00
$1,400.00
1-03-51315
E10
$0.00
$0.00
$165.00
1-03-51330
E10
Vision insurance
Employee Benefit - WC lns-02
$0.00
$0.00
$350.00
1-03-51335
E10
$0.00
$0.00
$6,500.00
1-03-51340
E12
$0.00
$0.00
$1,250.00
1-03-51350
E10
Health Reimbursemt Acct-03
$0.00
$0.00
$1,250.00
4/16
78
ATTACHMENT D
Account
1-03-51355
1-03-51415
Category
Description
Approved Budget
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2016
2/29/2016
2017
$G,OOO.OO
ElO
HSA expense
$0.00
$0.00
E15
$0.00
$0.00
$400.00
1-03-51425
E01
Training-Salaries/Wages-03
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
1-03-51430
E50
$0.00
$0.00
$2,500.00
Uniforms-AMWC-03
$0.00
$0.00
$100.00
1-03-51435
E15
1-03-51499
E05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-51G05
E01
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-51G10
E15
Safety Program
$0.00
$0.00
$50.00
1-03-52105
E40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-5210G
E40
Equipment purchase (IT)
$0.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
1-03-52110
E40
$0.00
$0.00
$4,300.00
1-03-53105
E40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-5310G
EGO
Software Lie & Purchases Exp
$0.00
$0.00
$72,000.00
1-03-53120
E50
Operating Licenses & Permits
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53130
E25
lnsurance-AMWC-02
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53135
EG5
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53140
E50
Marketing and Advertising
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53145
EGO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53150
EGO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-531GO
EGO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53180
EG5
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53240
E50
Technology Support Services-02
$0.00
$0.00
$28,000.00
1-03-532GO
E50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
E50
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-03-53270
Election Services-AMWC-02
1-03-53275
EG5
1-03-53990
EG5
1-0G-51105
E01
Salaries & Wages-AMWC-OG
1-0G-5110G
E01
1-0G-51199
E05
Labor Contra-AMWC-OG
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$380,000.00
300,144.00
$370,000.00
$0.00
7,G91.G5
$0.00
-$20,000.00
-15,592.39
-$20,000.00
25,252.08
$32,000.00
1-0G-51200
E01
Employer's Payroll Tax Exp-OG
$32,000.00
1-0G-51305
E10
Employee Benefit Med. lns.-OG
$80,000.00
58,GOO.GO
$60,000.00
1-06-51310
E10
Dental Insurance
$0.00
1,278.36
$8,000.00
$0.00
54.32
$700.00
$15,000.00
1-06-51315
E10
Vision Insurance
1-06-51330
E10
Employee Benefit - WC lns.-06
$15,000.00
12,793.82
E10
$30,000.00
21,853.26
$28,000.00
$0.00
0.00
$114,000.00
$6,000.00
2,603.96
$7,000.00
$0.00
697.86
$500.00
$20,000.00
690.58
$20,000.00
1-06-51335
1-06-51340
E12
1-06-51350
E10
Health Reimbursement Acct-06
E15
1-06-51415
1-06-51425
E01
Training-Salaries and Wages
1-06-51430
E50
$1,000.00
119.63
$200.00
$1,000.00
958.G5
$1,000.00
-$8,000.00
-6,899.75
-$6,000.00
1-06-51435
E15
Uniforms-AMWC-06
1-06-51499
E05
1-06-51G10
E15
Safety Program
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
428.40
$500.00
$0.00
1-06-51G15
E15
Drug & Alcohol Program
$0.00
1-06-52105
E40
$0.00
0.00
E40
Equipment purchase {IT)
$0.00
453.07
$0.00
5,358.70
$5,000.00
0.00
$0.00
1-06-52106
1-06-52110
E40
$5,000.00
1-06-52115
E40
Equipment Maint Supplies-OG
$0.00
4/16
79
ATTACHMENT D
Approved Budget
Account
1-06-52120
Category
E40
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2017
2016
$12,000.00
2/29/2016
10,785.62
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$40,000.00
Description
1-06-52125
E60
Vehicle Maint Supplies-06
1-06-52130
E40
1-06-52135
E40
$12,000.00
$40,000.00
36,718.67
$10,000.00
0.00
$4,000.00
81,539.97
$100,000.00
1-06-52145
E40
1-06-52165
E60
$100,000.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-06-53105
E60
$30,000.00
11,548.53
$25,000.00
1-06-53106
E60
Software Lie & Purchases Exp.
$0.00
1,960.00
$0.00
1-06-53107
E60
SCADA System Software & lie.
$0.00
1-06-53110
E50
Cross Connection Fees-AMWC-06
$12,000.00
0.00
10,518.45
$12,000.00
1-06-53115
E70
Chemicals-AMWC-06
$75,000.00
67,838.81
$75,000.00
1-06-53125
E60
$40,000.00
31,837.71
$40,000.00
1-06-53130
E25
lnsurance-AMWC-06
$15,000.00
9,992.98
$15,000.00
1-06-53135
E60
$1,000.00
760.00
$1,000.00
1-06-53145
E60
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-06-53150
E60
1-06-53160
E60
$0.00
513.95
$0.00
1-06-53165
E70
Electrical Charges-AMWC-06
$650,000.00
488,146.49
$625,000.00
1-06-53170
E70
Gas Charges-AMWC-06
$150,000.00
63,949.27
$130,000.00
1-06-53175
E30
$6,000.00
3,286.30
$6,000.00
1-06-53180
E60
$7,000.00
4,201.78
$6,000.00
1-06-53240
E50
Technology Services-AMWC-06
$0.00
125.98
$0.00
1-06-53242
E50
SCADA Support Services
$5,000.00
0.00
$5,000.00
$1,000.00
0.00
$1,000.00
1-06-53260
E50
1-06-53270
E50
1-06-53300
E60
Fees-AMWC-06
1-06-53310
E50
Bank Fees-AMWC-06
AMWC-Production-Damage Claims
1-06-53330
E60
1-06-53990
E60
1-07-51105
EOl
1-07-51106
EOl
$0.00
198.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
9,805.65
$15,000.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
67.10
$0.00
2,542.41
$1,000.00
$670,000.00
546,055.42
$692,000.00
$0.00
13,753.13
$0.00
-$150,000.00
-112,155.15
-$130,000.00
1-07-51199
E05
1-07-51200
EOl
Employer's Payroll Tax Exp.-07
$58,000.00
45,525.67
$60,000.00
1-07-51305
ElO
Employee Ben. - Med. lns.-07
$190,000.00
127,064.72
$150,000.00
1-07-51310
ElO
Dental Insurance
$0.00
3,316.50
$16,000.00
$1,500.00
1-07-51315
ElO
$0.00
1-07-51330
ElO
Vision Insurance
122.22
$30,000.00
22,430.46
$26,000.00
1-07-51335
ElO
Employee Benefit - Retirmnt-07
$50,000.00
38,995.81
1-07-51340
E12
1-07-51350
E10
Health Reimbursemt Account-07
HSA expense AMWC-Distribution-
$0.00
0.00
$50,000.00
$47,000.00
$11,000.00
$0.00
10,568.88
$12,000.00
0.00
$0.00
1-07-51355
ElO
1-07-51415
E15
$2,000.00
2,039.40
$2,000.00
1-07-51425
EOl
$5,000.00
888.24
$5,000.00
1-07-51430
E50
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
1-07-51435
E15
$11,000.00
786.85
10,306.55
$11,000.00
-$65,000.00
-57,534.37
-$39,000.00
$50,000.00
48,271.31
$50,000.00
$1,000.00
377.76
$1,000.00
1-07-51499
E05
Uniforms-AMWC-07
1-07-51605
EOl
1-07-51610
E15
Safety Program
4/16
80
ATTACHMENT D
Approved Budget
Account
Category
Description
1-07-51615
E15
1-07-52105
E40
1-07-52106
E40
1-07-52110
E40
Equipment purchases-IT
1-07-52120
E40
1-07-52125
E60
Vehicle Maint Supplies-07
1-07-52130
E40
1-07-52135
E40
1-07-52145
E40
1-07-52150
E40
Inventory lssues-AMWC-07
1-07-52155
E40
Inventory Adj (variances) -07
1-07-52165
E40
1-07-52170
E40
Freight Expense-AMWC-07
1-07-53105
E60
1-07-53106
E60
Software Lie & Purchases Exp.Operating Lie & Permits-07
1-07-53120
E50
1-07-53125
E60
1-07-53130
E25
lnsurance-AMWC-07
1-07-53135
E60
1-07-53160
E60
1-07-53175
E30
1-07-53180
E60
1-07-53240
E65
1-07-53260
E50
Technology expense
1-07-53270
E50
1-07-53300
Fees-AMWC-07
1-07-53310
E60
ESO
1-07-53330
E60
-Distribution-Damage Claims
1-07-53990
E60
Bank Fees-AMWC-07
1-09-51105
EOl
1-09-51200
EOl
Employer's Payroll Tax Exp.-09
1-09-51305
ElO
Employee Ben - Med. lns.-09
1-09-51330
ElO
1-09-51335
ElO
Employee Benefit - Retirmnt-09
1-09-51340
E12
1-09-51350
ElO
Health Reimbmt Account-09
1-09-51415
E15
1-09-51425
EOl
1-09-51430
ESO
1-09-51435
E15
Uniforms-AMWC-09
EOl
E15
Temporary help
1-09-51610
1-09-51615
E15
1-09-52106
E55
Equipment Purchase IT
1-09-52110
E40
1-09-51605
Safety Program
1-09-52120
E40
1-09-52130
E40
1-09-52145
E40
Year-to-day
2016
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$55,000.00
$30,000.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$150,000.00
$100,000.00
-$1,000.00
$25,000.00
$0.00
$25,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$30,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$4,000.00
$18,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$8,000.00
$1,000.00
$44,000.00
$4,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$3,000.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
$15,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
2/29/2016
970.00
0.00
1,065.29
45,336.64
40,328.64
$0.00
Proposed Budget
2017
$1,000.00
$0.00
$0.00
$55,000.00
$40,000.00
0.00
1,385.00
$0.00
$3,000.00
125.00
181,251.42
$175,000.00
34,801.33
$50,000.00
$0.00
2.83
-$1,000.00
23.46
$25,000.00
510.00
$0.00
20,258.31
$25,000.00
0.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
2,910.00
$2,000.00
17,945.96
$25,000.00
473.52
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
4,640.02
$5,000.00
11,538.79
$16,000.00
4,413.75
$0.00
2,687.41
$0.00
450.99
$0.00
822.00
$1,000.00
0.00
8,482.98
$0.00
$8,000.00
1,595.09
$2,000.00
44,888.31
$60,000.00
4,054.68
$6,000.00
0.00
$0.00
240.95
2,502.67
$500.00
$4,200.00
0.00
$0.00
1,037.39
$1,200.00
410.98
$200.00
591.13
$1,000.00
516.38
$1,000.00
0.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
63.00
$0.00
29.19
$0.00
90.57
1,318.00
$2,000.00
1,439.13
$1,000.00
0.00
$0.00
4/16
$0.00
81
ATTACHMENT D
Account
1-09-53105
Category
E40
Description
Approved Budget
Year-to-day
Proposed Budget
2016
2/29/2016
2017
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-09-53106
E60
Software Lie & Purchases Exp.-
$0.00
540.00
1-09-53130
E25
lnsurance-AMWC-09
$4,000.00
2,271.08
$3,000.00
1-09-53135
E65
$5,000.00
3,596.00
$4,000.00
1-09-53140
E60
Marketing & Advertising--09
$40,000.00
22,767.54
$20,000.00
1-09-53145
E60
$17,000.00
218.72
$5,000.00
1-09-53150
E60
$3,000.00
1,545.00
$2,000.00
$5,000.00
275.64
$3,000.00
$0.00
19.72
$0.00
$1,000.00
305.01
$1,000.00
1-09-53160
E60
1-09-53165
E30
Electrical Charges-AMWC-09
1-09-53175
E30
1-09-53180
E65
$1,000.00
1,231.20
$1,500.00
1-09-53190
ESS
Rebates Paid-AMWC-09
$18,000.00
30,726.50
$20,000.00
1-09-53200
ESS
Water Conservation Program
$16,000.00
25,186.73
$20,000.00
1-09-53220
ESS
ESQ
Water ConsAutumn Garden Tour
$10,000.00
6,204.93
$2,000.00
$0.00
99.00
$0.00
$0.00
1-09-53270
1-09-53300
E65
Fees-AMWC-09
$0.00
0.00
1-09-53310
E65
Bank Fees-AMWC-09
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-09-53990
E65
$0.00
145.00
$0.00
$850,000.00
1-10-58101
E95
Depreciation-Plant
$900,000.00
873,278.84
1-10-58105
E95
Depreciation-Non-Plant
$160,000.00
160,942.03
$160,000.00
1-10-58110
E95
Depreciation-prior year
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
$0.00
1,984.80
$250,000.00
283,123.59
$0.00
$120,000.00
SGMA Compliance
$0.00
19,475.16
$130,000.00
E84
Purchase price variance
$0.00
0.00
$0.00
1-11-59200
E85
NWP Debt Service
$2,422,000.00
1,882,862.71
$2,609 ,000.00
1-11-59210
E86
NWP O& M Expense
$947,000.00
933,813.35
$1,100,000.00
1-11-59305
E84
Directors Services
$31,000.00
25,000.00
$30,000.00
1-11-59350
E80
Income Taxes
$15,000.00
12,750.00
$15,000.00
$9,485,160.00
$7,842,105.99
$9,959,665.00
1-11-53260
E84
Professional services
1-11-53340
E88
1-11-53341
E89
1-11-58810
Total Expenses
4/16
82
April 13, 2016
ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT:
Monterey County Department of Water Resources Basin Boundary Modification
Application
The Board authorize the General Manger to submit a letter stating that AMWC does not
oppose the jurisdictional basin boundary modification being proposed by the Monterey County
Water Resources Agency.
PREPARED BY:
John Neil
DISCUSSION:
The passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in 2014, and its
emphasis on sustainable groundwater management at the basin level, has elevated the
importance of groundwater basin boundaries and their impact on future groundwater
management activities.
The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA} has applied for a basin
boundary modification to better implement SGMA. It is proposing a jurisdictional basin boundary
modification that subdivides the Paso Robles Basin at the Monterey County line. SGMA requires
the agency requesting the boundary modification to notify jurisdictions and water purveyors in
the basin. The portion of the Paso Robles Basin in Monterey County was not included in the
recently proposed Paso Robles Water District.
Staff feels that the proposed jurisdictional boundary modification will promote
sustainable groundwater management in the Paso Robles Basin.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
A. MCWRA Basin Boundary Modification Request Letter
4/16
83
MONTEREY COUNTY
WATER RESOURCES AGENCY
PO BOX 930
SALINAS . CA 93902
(831 )755-4860
FAX (831) 424 -7935
DAVID E. CHARDAVOYNE
GENERAL MANAGER
llEcEI'1]jjn
APR 04 2016
illtloW:c
STREET ADDRESS
893 BLANCO CIRCLE
SALINAS, CA 93901 -4455
March 31, 2016
PO Box 6075
Atascadero, CA 93423
RE: Basin Boundary Modification Request - Notification and Request for Support
Dear Atascadero Mutual Water Company:
The purpose of this letter is to notify affected local agencies and public water systems of the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency's (Agency) request to modify the existing boundary of the Paso Robles
Area Subbasin of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (SGMA).
In September 2014, Governor Brown signed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act into law. One
component of the SGMA provides local agencies with an opportunity to propose basin boundary
modifications that will better allow for implementation of the SGMA and sustainable management of a
groundwater basin.
The Agency, on behalf of the County, is proposing a jurisdictional basin boundary modification to the
Paso Robles Area Subbasin. The proposed modification would subdivide the existing Paso Robles Area
Subbasin along the Monterey County line in order to promote sustainable groundwater management. A
figure showing the proposed basin boundary is attached to this letter. More information is available on the
Agency's website at http://www.mcwra.co.monterey.ca.us. The Agency has not provided comments on
other Paso Robles Area Subbasin boundary modification requests.
The Agency is required to coordinate this boundary modification with all affected agencies. If you do not
oppose the proposed modification, please provide the Agency with a letter supporting the request at your
earliest opportunity. For convenience, a letter template is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the Agency's request, please contact Robert Johnson at 831-7554860 or johnsonr@co.monterey.ca.us.
al Manager
Enclosures: Figure and Support Letter Template
U~§. water~ 1~
Monterey Counl y Water Resources Agency manages, protects, and enhances the quant ity and
prov ides spec ifi ed Oood control services for present and future generations of Monterey County
Mr. Robe1i Johnson
Monterey County Water Resources Agency
P.O. Box 930
Salinas, CA 93902
RE:
Suppmi of Monterey County Water Resources Agency's Basin Boundary Modification
Request
Dear Mr. Johnson:
This letter is in response to your March 31, 2016 letter requesting suppo1i for the Monterey
County Water Resources Agency ' s proposed basin boundary modification to the Paso Robles
Area Subbasin. Our agency has reviewed the basin boundary modification letter and enclosed
map and has determined that we have no objection to the basin boundaiy modification as
described.
Thank you for providing an oppmiunity to comment on this proposal.
Sincerely,
Signature
Name/Title
Agency
Monterey Count y Water Resources Agency manages, protects, and enhances the quantity and CJ/1alitv of water and
provides specifi ed nood control services for pre ent and future generation of
Mo4crl<61111y 8 5
Page 2 of 3
• t l!J
,_ l
,·
f}J
\~ ,
"'''r:.,
C\
I
''•
'.·,,
'(
'
,,
·.
.."'2 1 fl .',
~.1J
m
I
Paso Robles Area
(3·4.p6)
/
/
hmrf n
)
'
.
..
•;,
on1 ~, , ·,1
.,
1•
1.1'"'
[)
I
"*
ID
5
10
...
I
I
I / Lo
llt
',
m
'
Legend
c::J Existing Paso Robles Area Subbasin
iL~
D
County Boundary
Proposed Basin Modification
I
Nol e: Th e scale and configurallon o r all informa1ion shown hereo n
1:500,000
0
903
Sowces: Esri, HERE, Delorme, 1n1ermap, lnc•emenl P Co•p., GEBCO, USGS,
FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBa se, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnan€e Survey, Esri
J~ p,an, METl,1Esn Chl na (Hong Kong ~. swisstopo. Mapmy lrfdia, ©
OpenSt•ee\Map co nt n ~ l1Jors . and lhe GIS Use r Community
f• I
Paso Robles Area Subbasin
Proposed Basin Boundary Modification
,.~
/\'X
! ("
t. \ I I I U I.
Q
are approximate and are not Intended as a guide ror su rvey or
desigrl work. This is a dra ft map. Some features have been a ll ~red
in order to illustrate proposed modi(ications to D\VR Bulletin 118
grou ndwa t er basin boundaries. Map Date: February 3, 2016
20 Miles
I
Monterey Co unty Wa ter Resources Agency manages, protects, and e nh ances the quant ity and ~u a lit y of wate r and
prov ides specified fl ood cont ro l serv ices fo r pre c nt and future ge nera ti on of Mc4yel f iunty
86
Page 3of3
APRIL 13, 2016
ACTION ITEM
SUBJECT:
Appointment of Inspectors of Election for Annual Meeting
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint John Hollenbeck, Jim Patterson, and Don Vert to act as inspectors of
election at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held at the Atascadero Mutual
Water Company business office, located at 5005 El Camino Real, Atascadero,
California, on May 18, 2016, at 6:30 p.m., and appoint Don Vert as Chairperson.
In the event that one of the above inspectors is not able to attend, of the two
that are in attendance, one will act as inspector and the other will be an alternate, in
the order that they are listed above.
PREPARED BY:
Cheryl J. Powers
4/16
87

Apr 2016 Board Packet - Atascadero Mutual Water Company

Transcription

Similar documents

June - Mid-state

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

Apr 2016 Minutes - Atascadero Mutual Water Company

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

Porky Expo Flyer

The NeuLion Report

Annual Meeting Minutes - Atascadero Mutual Water Company

Sept 30-Oct 2, 2016 Nov 4-6, 2016 @Camp Tadmor

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS