HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-04 Utilities Advisory Commission Agenda Packet
NOTICE IS POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2(a) OR 54956
I. ROLL CALL
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Members of the public are invited to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda. A
reasonable time restriction may be imposed at the discretion of the Chair. State law generally precludes
the UAC from discussing or acting upon any topic initially presented during oral communication.
III. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of the Minutes of the Utilities Advisory Commission Meeting held on December 10, 2014
IV. AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSIONER MEETINGS/EVENTS
VI. DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES REPORT
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Selection of Potential Topic(s) for Discussion at Future UAC Meeting Action
2. Preliminary Financial Forecasts and Rate Changes for Electric, Gas, Discussion
Wastewater Collection, and Water Utilities
3. Update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Collection of All of its State Discussion
Water Project Costs via Property Taxes Instead of Water Rates
4. Update and Discussion on Impacts of Statewide Drought on Water and Discussion
Hydroelectric Supplies
IX. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
X. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING: March 4, 2015
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS - A complete list of informational reports provided to the UAC can be viewed at
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports.asp?code=CAPALO_8 and at City Hall, 3rd Floor, Utilities
Administration office. Information reports cannot be discussed during UAC meetings, in compliance with Govt.
Code Section 54954.2(a)(2
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2015 – 7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Palo Alto City Hall – 250 Hamilton Avenue
Chairman: Jonathan Foster Vice Chair: Asher Waldfogel Commissioners: Audrey Chang, James F. Cook, Steve Eglash, Garth Hall, and John Melton Council Liaison: Gregory Scharff
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 1 of 16
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 10, 2014
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chair Waldfogel called to order at 7:05 p.m. the meeting of the Utilities Advisory
Commission (UAC).
Present: Commissioners Cook, Eglash, Foster (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Hall, Melton, and Waldfogel
Absent: Council Liaison Scharff and Commissioner Chang
Note that Commissioner Hall excused himself and left the meeting at 10:03 p.m., just after the
non-water part of New Business Item #3 (Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory
Commission Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended City
of Palo Alto Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines, discussion of part one, everything except for
Water) due to his self-identified conflict of interest on water issues.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Margaret Atkins - safety concerns due to engineering's decision to hire outside contractor to
work on live gas. "Your homes are their pilot program." It could be many years before the
problems come forward. It could lead to the problems as at San Bruno and Carmel. The
employees are long-term and care about the system.
Eglash: are these workers employees of Utilities or Public Works
Marshall: Utilities
Lynn Krug - representing WGW SEIU operations workers who have years of experience and
training, number one concern of employees is safety. If you are hiring a contractor to perform
live gas work, would give them unspecified parts, not require training. Workers concerned
about cavalier attitude of management to hire these contractors
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Commissioner Eglash moved to approve the minutes from the October 1, 2014 UAC meeting as
presented and Commissioner Melton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously
(6-0 with Commissioner Chang absent and Commissioner Hall abstaining on the items he was
absent for: New Business items 4 and 5).
AGENDA REVIEW AND REVISIONS
Chair Foster decided to change the order of the items under New Business on the agenda. The
agenda order will be Item #4 (connection and capacity fees), Item #1 (CLEAN program), Item 2
DRAFT
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 2 of 16
(Community Solar program), Item #5 (topics for next meeting), Item #3, part one (legislative
guidelines, everything except Water), Item #3, part two (legislative guidelines, Water) and Item
#6, impact of drought).
REPORTS FROM COMMISSION MEETING/EVENTS
None.
UTILITIES DIRECTOR REPORT
1. Communications Update
Palo Alto Named Public Power Utility of the Year – In October, Palo Alto was named
the “Public Power Utility of the Year” for 2014 by the Solar Electric Power Association
(SEPA). The City is the only agency to receive this award and was honored at the Solar
Power International Conference for its long-term leadership and innovation in
promoting solar energy.
New El Camino Solar Streetlight Pilot Project – New solar photovoltaic modules were
installed on El Camino Real between Embarcadero Road and Park Blvd. The pilot project
will help power the streetlights, send extra electricity back to the grid, allow the City to
remotely control lighting and improve maintenance. The technology will increase
renewable energy production at no cost to the City and could help transform
streetlights into a network of “smart” distributed solar generating assets. Community
members are invited to provide feedback through an online survey at
cityofpaloalto.org/ElCaminoSolarTest
Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for New Landfill Gas-to-Energy Project – On November 13,
local officials and industry leaders commemorated completion of a new landfill gas -to-
energy project at Foothills landfill in San Joaquin County. This is the fifth and last City
project with Ameresco, Inc. to purchase clean, renewable energy generated through
landfill gas capture. The project will generate 4.3 megawatts of electricity, enough to
serve 3% of the entire City’s electric usage and power nearly 3,000 homes each year.
Mayor Shepherd helped cut the ribbon in celebration of another successful milestone in
the City’s commitment to long-term renewable energy supplies.
2. Community Outreach Events and Workshops
October 25 – Utilities staff attended a neighborhood emergency preparedness fair,
providing educational materials and information on resources for utility safety and
emergency preparedness.
November 18 – Utilities participated in a public sustainability workshop hosted by Chief
Sustainability Officer Gil Friend to help showcase achievements and initiatives the City
has engaged in to assist in meeting goals for its Sustainability and Climate Action Plan.
3. Staff Speaking Engagements: Staff has been asked recently to speak at several events
recently, including:
On October 22, Utilities Marketing Engineer Lindsay Joye made a presentation at the
Solar Power International conference in Las Vegas on Palo Alto’s Solar Programs
On November 21, Lindsay Joye and Senior Resource Planner Jim Stack participated on a
Utilities panel for a Stanford University graduate class, the Energy Transformation
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 3 of 16
Collaborative on Palo Alto’s solar programs and renewable power procurement. The
students are seeking utilities to partner with to for various pilot projects.
On December 4, Senior Resource Planner Karla Dailey spoke at the Renewable Energy
Markets conference in Sacramento on a panel focused on developments in renewable
fuel markets, green gas and gas offset products, and electricity offset products. Karla
discussed the design and development of the PaloAltoGreen Gas program.
4. PaloAltoGreen Gas Update: CPAU is finalizing print and outreach materials for a soft -
launch this month. Previous PaloAltoGreen participants will have the first opportunity to
enroll and will receive letters this month encouraging them to participate. In January, we
will mail letters to all customers about the new program and include outreach in the
February utility bills.
5. Georgetown University Energy Prize Update: Georgetown will announce the competition
semifinalists this month and host a webinar to share outreach resources. CPAU plans to
issue a press release in mid-December announcing our participation and the official start of
the competition on January 1. Staff is finalizing outreach materials, including a new website
that will allow customers to pledge to conserve energy, share their ideas with CPAU and
access efficiency resources.
Commissioner Melton asked if the solar streetlight system has a battery backup? Marketing
Engineer Lindsay Joye replied that the system is grid connected and has no battery backup.
Chair Foster stated that it was great to know about the staff speaking engagements and that he
would like to continue hearing about those.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 1 (Original Agenda New Business Item 4): ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Adopt a Resolution Amending Water,
Gas and Wastewater Connection and Capacity Fees and Miscellaneous Utility Charges (Utility
Rate Schedules G-5, W-5, S-5 and C-1)
Tomm Marshall, Assistant Director for Engineering, said that it has been at least 5 years since
the fees in question have been updated; therefore there may be a substantial increase. The
fees are based on the time and materials it takes to recover the cost to do the work.
Vice Chair Waldfogel said that he’d like to get a sense of before and after impact of the fees.
He asked what the change is in the total cost due to the proposed change in fees for a
homeowner. Marshall said that every service is different, but for a typical residential customer
needing new gas, water, and sewer services, the cost would change from $13,700 to $17,400, a
27% increase.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 4 of 16
Chair Foster asked how long it has been since the fees were changed. Marshall replied at least
5 or 6 years.
Commissioner Hall asked how these fees compare to those for other entities, such as PG&E for
gas and other agencies for sewer, and if the other entities’ fees are based on time and materials
too. Marshall said that on PG&E’s website, gas service fee schedule provides a range from
$2,000 to $12,000 and it appears to be prepared by their Estimators on a case by case basis. He
said that Palo Alto uses a fixed price. Commissioner Hall asked the same question for sewer.
Marshall said that Palo Alto is different since the City owns the lower sewer laterals. For most
of the other agencies, the customer owns the entire sewer lateral. Commissione r Hall asked if
there would be a cost saving to the City if we transfer the ownership of the lower laterals to the
customers. Marshall said that the City has evaluated the possibility but we received strong
push back because the customers didn’t want to t ake on the additional cost. We may re-
evaluate that option and go through the policy change process, after the laterals have been
examined and/or repaired as a result of the cross-bore inspection program.
Commissioner Hall asked what the excess length fee for gas services greater than 40 feet is, and
who covers the additional trenching cost. Marshall said that it’s the incremental cost of boring
to get to a distant meter location and that trenching is not usually needed.
Commissioner Eglash asked if there was a concern about customers who have been planning a
project, but would suddenly be facing a large fee increase. He asked if the fee increase could
be adopted, but be delayed until 2016, to allow adequate time for notices to customers.
Marshall said that when fees change, the City sends a letter to those with projects on file and
provides a 90-day notice during which they can pay the fees under the old rates. Commissioner
Eglash asked if there are issues with this approach, for example, in the case of the project not
being far enough along in the planning phase so that the fee estimate cannot be firmed up.
Marshall said that generally, if there is a project on file, the City has already provided an
estimate.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked if the fees could be based on labor costs and changed
administratively so that they wouldn't have to wait for the lengthy review process to be
updated. Marshall said that there was a legal issue for how these fees can be changed .
Commissioner Cook asked if it could be setup for an annual automatic renewal approved by the
City Manager. Senior Deputy City Attorney Jessica Mullan stated that the fees can't be
automatically renewed, but most go through a public review and hearing process and it
requires the Council’s approval.
Vice Chair Waldfogel noted that the gas commodity rates are changed based on market
conditions within a Council-established range and do not go back for Council approval each
month. Mullan said that the applicable law is different for gas rates.
Commissioner Hall noted that the fees show an encouragement for cost savings for folks with
combined fire service and domestic water service, but it looks like there are actually two
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 5 of 16
charges. Marshall replied that a residential customer can have one pipe to serve both fire and
domestic water services. For commercial customers, it’s usually one larger pipe for fire service
with a pipe tapped off from it for potable water service; therefore two charges would apply.
ACTION:
Commissioner Eglash made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Cook
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (6-0 with Chair Foster, Vice Chair
Waldfogel, Commissioners Cook, Eglash, Hall and Melton voting yes, and with Commissioner
Chang absent).
ITEM 2 (Original Agenda New Business Item 1): ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Continue the Palo Alto Clean Local
Energy Accessible Now (CLEAN) Program at the Rate of 16.5 cents per Kilowatt -hour for a 20-
Year Contract and a Program Cap of 3 Megawatts, Add a 25-Year Contract Term Option, and
Expand CLEAN Program Eligibility to Non-Solar Renewable Energy Resources
Senior Resource Planner Jim Stack summarized the history of the Palo Alto CLEAN program
from when it was first adopted in March 2012 to the last updated price and program cap in
February 2014. Stack indicated that the City released a Request for Proposals for lease
agreements for City-owned parking structures and has selected a finalist who is expected to
participate in the program at five facilities for a total of about 1.5 megawatts (MW).
Stack explained that the value of local solar has fallen since the program was first launched, but
has increased slightly since last year's evaluation. He said that staff recommends that the
current price of 16.5 cents/kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) and program participation cap of 3 MW be
recommended to Council. He also said that staff recommends allowing participants to choose
either a 20-year or 25-year contract term, noting that some developers had requested a longer
contract term given that it would align better with the solar module lifetime and product
warranties.
Stack also said that staff recommends expanding the CLEAN program’s eligibility to include non -
solar local renewable resources, while offering these resources a contract price that is equal to
their avoided cost (9.3 ¢/kWh for a 20-year term or 9.4 ¢/kWh for a 25-year term). He noted
that expanding the program to non-solar resources has been discussed since the program’s
inception, but that it was initially not done due to the fact that the City already had a competing
program (the Power from Local Ultra-clean Generation Incentive, or PLUG-In, program) in place
for such resources. However, this program was terminated by Council earlier this year. Stack
noted that the potential anaerobic digester facility that has been discussed for the wastewater
treatment plant has been mentioned as a possible non-solar participant in the CLEAN program.
Finally, Stack stated that staff recommends that there be no participation cap on non -solar
resources participating in the CLEAN program, given that these resources will be compensated
at their avoided cost and therefore not have any impact on ratepayers.
Commissioner Eglash asked if resources are paid only for the energy that is delivered, not based
on their nameplate capacity. Stack said that this was the case; that payments are made only for
energy received, as with a regular power purchase agreement (PPA). Commissioner Eglash
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 6 of 16
noted that this means the City does not have to worry about degradation of the solar panels
over time.
Commissioner Eglash commented on the types of non-solar resources that would be eligible for
the program, and asked about a hypothetical example of a system of lead-acid batteries that
are charged at night using electricity from the grid, and whether that would be eligible to
participate in the program. Stack stated that the program Eligibility Rules and Requirements
stipulate that a resource must be deemed an “eligible renewable” resource under the California
Public Utilities Code in order to participate.
Commissioner Eglash asked whether there are any risks that the City should consider in opening
the program up to non-solar renewable energy resources, and also asked whether there are
any other utilities that are allowing non-solar renewable energy resources to participate in their
feed-in tariff programs. Senior Deputy City Attorney Jessica Mullan mentioned that the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Power has a feed-in tariff program that is open to wind and
biomass projects.
Commissioner Eglash asked whether a customer who wanted to install a small wind turbine on
their property would have to go through a zoning review process in order to do that. Assistant
Director Jane Ratchye stated that such a project would have to go through a regular City review
process—possibly including an architectural review process and an environmental review
process—just like any other development project.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked whether a fuel cell using “green gas” would be considered a
renewable resource by the California Energy Commission (CEC). Stack stated it would be
considered a renewable resource, while Ratchye noted that it would likely be di fficult to get
physical “green gas” delivered to the City. Commissioner Eglash asked whether a fuel cell such
as a Bloom Box that simply used a regular natural gas supply would be deemed eligible, and
Stack stated that it would not. Vice Chair Waldfogel asked whether a Bloom Box that used gas
from the City’s PaloAltoGreen Gas program would be eligible. Stack stated that it would not,
because that program uses environmental offsets to “green up” a regular natural gas supply,
whereas the state Public Utilities Code requires that fuel cells use actual green gas in order to
be deemed a renewable electricity supply.
Commissioner Eglash asked Stack for his opinion on whether the staff recommendation to open
the CLEAN program to non-solar renewable energy resources was wise and well thought out.
Stack responded that he thought it did make sense to open the program to non -solar resources
rather than discriminate against them, and that as long as they can pass through the City’s
regular permitting and review processes they should be eligible to participate.
Commissioner Eglash stated his concern that opening the program up to any type of renewable
resource, for a 20- or 25-year term, with no participation cap (for non-solar resources) exposed
the City to risks that it may not have considered. However, he also noted that the City regularly
signs long-term PPAs, locking in a contract price for an extended period of time.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 7 of 16
Ratchye agreed that opening the CLEAN program to non-solar resources would not be
significantly different from the City’s regular PPA process. She also noted that staff would be
returning to Council every year to review the program and its contract price, so the prices and
terms being proposed right now would not be available forever. She also noted t hat staff does
not expect significant participation from non-solar resources. She stated that the only real
concern with the staff proposal was for a non-solar price that was based on the avoided cost of
a baseload type of resource, such as an anaerobic di gester, and that it might not accurately
reflect the value of a renewable resource with a different generation profile such as a wind
resource. Finally, she pointed out that one way to address the concern about participation of
non-solar resources in the CLEAN program would be to impose a program participation cap on
those resources.
Commissioner Eglash noted that in the case of regular PPAs, each project is reviewed by the
UAC, the Finance Committee, and the full City Council. Whereas with the CLEAN program the
City would be committing itself to projects of unlimited size without any additional review. He
suggested that the UAC might want to consider requiring Council approval of larger projects.
Ratchye responded that the UAC could certainly make that recommendation; however, it would
defeat the purpose of a feed-in tariff program, which is to establish a known price and a
standard contract and a set of participation criteria, and allow projects to participate in the
program without going through the typical thorough review process. She also noted that the
chances of a giant locally-sited project are incredibly remote.
Vice Chair Waldfogel commented that large projects would have long lead times to develop and
that it would not be unreasonable to expect some negotiations to occur for such large projects.
Commissioner Hall stated that he has problems with the anaerobic digester being part of this
program due to the fact that it could be a very large project and it should have to go through
the regular PPA negotiation and review process. He also said that since the anaerobic digester
would likely be a City-owned project (but not owned by Utilities) and therefore it would be a
transfer price and this could be an issue for the public. However, he likes the idea of having a
feed-in tariff program in place, and that in the future fuel cells could be a good technology to
participate in the program as their prices come down.
Commissioner Foster noted that although there has not been any uptake for the program yet,
he is supportive of continuing the program for solar at the 16.5 ¢/kWh price and that he
supports adding a 25-year contract term option. He also noted that for solar projects, the
incremental cost of those projects participating is very small for residential customers (he
calculated the rate impact as 12.5 ¢/month for the median residential customer, assuming the
CLEAN program was fully subscribed).
Commissioner Foster noted that the anaerobic digester is a large motivation for expanding the
program to non-solar projects, and that it is a complicated project for the City . He noted that if
that project participates in the CLEAN program it will bring certainty to one aspect of the
project (the revenue it will receive for the power it generates) that i s currently up in the air. He
also stated that because the project will be compensated at its avoided cost he feels that the
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 8 of 16
arrangement is reasonable and therefore he supports the non -solar portion of the staff
recommendation in addition to the solar portion.
Commissioner Melton stated that he is also comfortable with the staff proposal and that he is
convinced that there will not be any off-the-wall projects coming out of this program, since any
resource that wishes to participate must be defined by the state as an eligible renewable
energy resource.
Commissioner Cook stated that he also likes the staff recommendation, but he would put a cap
on the non-solar projects, such as 3 MW, in order to have more control on the City’s exposure.
For a compelling project that is larger than 3 MW, the developers would come to staff to
discuss the project and staff could seek Council approval of the project or seek Council approval
to raise the 3 MW cap. He also stated that he is not concerned about the transfer pri cing issue,
since the price is set at the avoided cost of the energy.
Commissioner Eglash commented that Commissioner Cook’s recommendation did not signal
that the City would reject projects larger than 3 MW, but that such projects would have to go
through a more thorough review process.
Ratchye asked Stack to remind the Commission about the size of the anaerobic digester project.
Stack stated that Public Works staff currently anticipates that the project will consist of three
800 kilowatt (kW) engines, with two engines operating and one idle at any point in time;
therefore the project would have an operating capacity of about 1.6 MW.
Ratchye also reminded the Commission that when Council terminated the PLUG-In program
earlier this year, staff told Council that after terminating that program, it would return to
Council with a recommendation to expand the CLEAN program to include non -solar renewable
energy resources such as the anaerobic digester.
ACTION:
Chair Foster made a motion to approve staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Melton
seconded the motion.
Commissioner Eglash, explaining that he doesn't feel that the UAC has received a full discussion
and justification for non-solar projects, made a substitute motion to eliminate the non-solar
aspect of the staff recommendation. His motion was to approve staff’s recommendation parts
1.a. and 2 (Adopt a resolution to continue the Palo Alto CLEAN program at the current price of
16.5 cents per kilowatt-hour (¢/kWh) for a 20-year contract, add a 25-year contract term option
with a 16.5 ¢/kWh price, and continue with a program limit of 3 megawatts (MW) for solar
energy resources; and Direct staff to return to the Council with a review of the program in one
year or at the time the program capacity is filled, whichever comes first.). Commissioner Hall
seconded the substitute motion. The motion carried by a vote of 3-2 (with Chair Foster and
Commissioner Melton voting no, Vice Chair Waldfogel and Commissioners Eglash and Hall
voting yes, Commissioner Cook abstaining, and Commissioner Chang absent).
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 9 of 16
ITEM 3 (Original Agenda New Business Item 2): ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the
Utilities Advisory Commission Recommend that Council Establish a Local Community Solar
Program, Including the Use of the Environmental Attributes Generated via the Program, and
the Program’s Power Purchase Agreement Rate, Capacity and Term
Commissioner Cook recused himself for this item and left the room.
Public comment:
Meghan King, an employee of 3Degrees, stated that Palo Alto is a leader in renewable energy
programs. She said she was concerned with the proposed treatment of Renewable Energy
Certificates (RECs) for the program. She said that if a customer is thinking they are buying solar
energy, they need to be able to claim the RECs.
Chair Foster asked her how a customer would use these RECs. King responded that if the
customer makes the claim on the REC, but the City uses them, then they will be double
counted. Chair Foster asked who would be harmed by this. King replied that the entire REC
structure would be called into question.
Commissioner Eglash asked what business 3Degrees is in. King said that 3Degrees is in the
renewable energy business, sells RECs, and markets and administers community solar
programs.
Staff Presentation
Resource Planner Aimee Bailey presented a summary of the written report. She indicated that
a community solar program is part of the overarching Local Solar Plan adopted by Council.
Bailey described the program design constraints and the program development process. She
indicated that the Request for Proposals was relatively open ended and allowed for innovative
program designs.
Bailey described the roles of the different parties in the program. The vendor would develop
the solar project, receive participation payments from the participants and have a Power
Purchase Agreement (PPA) with the City whereby the City would buy the electricity and RECs.
The City would provide participants a monetary credit on their utility bill.
Bailey discussed the alternative program designs considered as well as alternatives for how the
RECs would be treated. Bailey said that staff's recommendation is for CPAU to pay for both the
energy and RECs for use in the City's Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). One alternative is for
CPAU to pay for the energy and RECs and retire the RECs on behalf of the participants.
However, in this case, since the resultant power would be brown power, CPAU would need to
buy additional RECs to maintain a carbon neutral electricity supply. Another alternative is for
CPAU to buy only the electricity at the CLEAN price minus the value of a solar REC. Then the
vendor can retire the RECs on behalf of program participants. This would result in a lower
impact on ratepayers. Bailey said that the vendor selected is the Clean Energy Coalition (CEC).
Chair Foster asked if the idea is for the participants to buy the panels up front. Bailey
confirmed that this was the case. Chair Foster asked if CEC has found a location for the project.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 10 of 16
Bailey replied that no site has been found yet. Chair Foster asked whether the City will help, or
has helped, CEC to find a location. Bailey said that the City cannot help until it has a contract
with CEC.
Chair Foster said that he prefers virtual net metering, but understands the problems with the
billing system that make that not a viable solution. He said that he generally supports the
proposed treatment of RECs in the proposed program design.
Commissioner Hall asked what the City’s obligations are and what risks the participants have.
He said that he needed to understand what the obligations in the contract between CPAU and
the vendor were and what kind of entity CEC is; for example, what assurances exist regarding
the responsibility to continue maintaining the solar facility, what is the dispute resolution
process, what protections exist for the participants, and, if all else fails and the vendor
disappears, who would operate the facility.
Bailey replied that CEC is a for-profit entity that has done community solar projects with 18
utilities in the U.S., but none yet in California. She explained that CEC sets up a trust as a part of
the project LLC to perform the maintenance on the system.
Commissioner Eglash, noting that participants write a big check up front, asked what
protections they have.
Senior Deputy City Attorney Jessica Mullan pointed to page 5 of the report which describes the
agreements that would be part of the program overall.
Bailey said that customer protections are in the participant agreement which is between CPAU
and the participants, but the agreement is subject to the City's legal review.
Commissioner Eglash said that he is still left wondering about what the City will do to protect
the ratepayers. He asked if the City does not think this is the responsibility of the City.
Commissioner Hall said that the best structure to protect participants is that the City is the
trustee and the backstop for the residents.
Mullan said that in the PPA between the City and vendor there are protections for how the
project would be operated. She said that the second agreement is the service agreement
between the City and vendor, which would have protections for the participants, would allow
for audits, indemnity language, etc. This agreement would be the place for these protections.
Commissioner Melton said that if the City is not a party to the agreement to hold harmless the
participants. Commissioner Eglash asked if the intention is to make the participants whole and
asked if the risk is to the City or the participants. Chair Foster said that he would be very
surprised if that risk would be on the City. He said that the City may endeavor to protect the
participants, but will not guarantee complete protection.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 11 of 16
Bailey said that the intent is to minimize the risk, but not to eliminate it.
Mullan added that her understanding is that the City is attempting to limit the risk for the
participants.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked why are we looking at such a complicated vehicle. He wondered
why CEC couldn’t just be a CLEAN program participant; leaving the City out of the roles it is
taking on in the program.
Bailey said that securities law requires the program design to include the disbursement of the
monetary bill credits through the utility bill so the City must have that role.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked if the structure still exposed participants to securities law
compliance and reporting issues.
Chair Foster asked if the risk that a participant has is the same as putting a solar system on their
own roof. He stated that if a homeowner put a solar system on his own roof and the vendor
subsequently disappeared, the homeowner would be on their own, unless they had purchased
some type of insurance. He said that he hopes that the City will take every effort to reduce the
risks to participants, but that risks may remain.
Commissioner Melton stated that if the City is not going to take on the risk, then the program
marketing materials should very clearly disclose the fact that the City is not guaranteeing the
project so that participants know what they’re getting in to.
Commissioner Hall said that, hypothetically, when a future City Council sees a failed project
orchestrated by the City, the outcome would be bad. He said that the City does need to take a
reasonable set of risks and move forward, but the City should explicitly disclose the risks to
participants.
Chair Foster said that this program is still a very good deal for people who cannot get solar on
their own house with less risk and at less cost due to the scale of the project.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked how RECs are dealt with for this program, the CLEAN program, and
when a homeowner or business puts a solar system on their own building.
Bailey explained that for the CLEAN program, CPAU is purchasing the energy and all output
including the RECs and the RECs are used for the City’s RPS. For a customer-sited installation in
Palo Alto, the customer claims the environmental attributes of the system. We are proposing to
model this program off of CLEAN, where the price of the energy & RECs is 16.5 cents/kwh and
the City will use the RECs for our RPS.
Mullan added that the FTC is the agency focused on advertising and consumer protection as it
relates to the marketing piece of the program and there are overlapping state-level agencies.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 12 of 16
Chair Foster asked if the City attorney has looked at this issue of RECs.
Vice Chair Waldfogel, noting that the proposed program structure is being built around
interpretation of SEC rules, asked if is there a written ruling that the structure is not a security
regulated under the appropriate rules.
Mullan said that this is a very important point for the City and we will insist on the vendor
indemnifying the City for the structure of the program. Therefore, if a subsequent SEC ruling
says this type of program is a security, the sponsor organization – the City – is not liable.
Participants would have no exposure to the risk of being regulated under securities laws
Commissioner Eglash complimented staff for doing a great job on a complicated project. He
said that he is very supportive of the community solar program. He asked why there was a 3
MW cap for the program. Bailey explained that the cap is in place for the same reason as for
CLEAN program – to limit the rate impact from the program since the price is higher than the
avoided cost of local solar.
Commissioner Eglash asked what happens if a participant leaves town. Bailey explained that
participants must be within CPAU service area to receive the benefit of the bill credit so if
participants leave town, they can sell their share of the project to others. The CEC would
facilitate a sale of the participation share, or the participant could donate the value.
Commissioner Eglash said that his primary concern is the risk to participants. For example,
what if a homeowner moves out and is not able to sell the participation share. He asked what
role the City has in protecting participants—he noted that the report and the presentation
suggest an arm’s length relationship between participants and the CEC. He said that when he
puts panels on his own roof, he know he’s at risk and may want to purchase insurance, but if he
participated in this program, he wouldn't expect to take on much risk. Commissioner Eglash
concluded that the information in the report is not sufficient to let the UAC make a
recommendation to Council.
Chair Foster asked if the City Attorney feels there is sufficient description of the clear role of the
City and what level of effort will the City take to protect participants.
Mullan replied that staff is asking now for high level policy level direction regarding price, term,
and program structure. She said that the agreements will be negotiated and approved by
Council.
Commissioner Eglash stated that if the UAC acts tonight, it is assuming that the issues raised
tonight would be negotiated into the agreements.
Mullan said that the reports to Council will have the information available with respect to the
concerns around participant risks since, by then, the agreements will be negotiated and in final
form.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 13 of 16
Commissioner Eglash stated that until the negotiations are complete, he wouldn’t know if
another structure, or another vendor, would best address the risks discussed tonight.
ACTION:
Commissioner Hall made a motion to reject staff’s proposal and request that staff return to
UAC with a full discussion and listing of the risks faced by the City and program participants.
Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion.
Chair Foster made a substitute motion to support staff's recommendation, indicated that he
feels that staff will complete the negotiations of the required agreements with consideration of
the UAC’s input from the discussion. The motion failed for lack of second.
Commissioner Melton made a substitute motion to table the item (rather than reject staff’s
recommendation) until staff returns with a fuller discussion and disclosure of the risks to the
participants and a description of staff’s proposal for how to manage the risks. The motion
failed for lack of a second.
Chair Foster commented that he is confident that staff will negotiate the agreements
appropriately, and with the input from the UAC tonight, and that returning to UAC extends the
already lengthy review process.
The commission voted on the original motion to reject staff’s proposal and to request that staff
return to UAC with a full discussion and listing of the risks faced by the City and program
participants. The motion carried by a vote of 4-1 (with Vice Chair Waldfogel and
Commissioners Eglash, Hall and Melton voting yes, Chair Foster voting no, Commissioner Cook
recused, and Commissioner Chang absent).
ITEM 4 (Original Agenda New Business Item 5): ACTION: Selection of Potential Topic(s) for
Discussion at Future UAC Meeting
Chair Foster noted that the UAC should reach out to new mayor when elected and the three
new Council members.
Vice Chair Waldfogel indicated that he would like to take up the topic of public engagement as
to whether the UAC’s advisory role is valuable to Council. For example, he would like the
commission to explore if the meeting format is the right format for accomplishing the advisory
goals and whether it should explore other formats.
Commissioner Melton noted that the fuel switching topic is of interest to the Council and that
the topic may be increased in importance in the near future.
ACTION:
Commissioner Cook stated that he would like to discuss electric undergrounding again. Chair
Foster indicted that he, too, had a desire to add this item to a future agenda.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 14 of 16
Commissioner Hall requested that the UAC review the City’s sustainability goals related to
Utilities with the Chief Sustainability Officer. Chair Foster indicated his support for adding that
topic to a future agenda.
ITEM 5 (Original Agenda New Business Item 4 – part one, legislative guidelines related to all
utilities except water): ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission
Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended C ity of Palo Alto
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines
Senior Resource Planner Nico Procos explained that staff split this item into two parts - the first
part discussing the guidelines for everything but the water utility and the second part related to
just the water utility to allow Commissioner Hall to participate in part one and then leave the
meeting (due to a self-identified conflict related to water issues). Procos provided a summary
of the written report. He noted that the guidelines in the past were designated to calendar
years; starting this year the guidelines will not sunset at the end of the calendar year but
continue until updated. Staff still commits to an annual update of the guidelines.
Procos provided a summary of the key State issues in 2015, which could include changes to the
Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), new greenhouse gas (GHG) targets, the next generation of
net energy metering, potential carve-outs for certain resources, and issues related to low-
income and disadvantaged communities. Key Federal issues include issues related to the
Federal power marketing, cybersecurity, grid reliability, emissions standards, and budget and
tax reform. Procos walked through the proposed changes and additions to the guidelines,
which were provided as Attachment B to the written report.
Commissioner Hall enquired why the wastewater guideline #2 regarding exposure to
wastewater overflows had been removed. He mentioned that during wet weather events water
can get diverted into the sanitary sewer and cause overflows. Procos mentioned he had heard
about such incidents, but the treatment plant has excess capacity to handle increased flows so
this is not anticipated to be an issue.
Vice Chair Waldfogel asked if gas guideline #3 moved us to or away from supporting or
opposing disclosure of fracking chemicals since it would increase the cost of gas supplies.
Compliance Manager Debra Lloyd responded that this guideline was not intended to address
fracking of natural gas, rather it was intended to support equal treatment for in-state vs out-of-
state renewable gas production. Lloyd referred to Natural Gas guideline #11 that provides
direction on supporting transparency regarding fracking, but not blanket moratoriums.
ACTION:
Commissioner Cook made a motion that the UAC recommend that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines covering everything but the
Water Utility. Commissioner Eglash seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously (6-0
with Commissioner Chang absent).
At this point in the meeting, Commissioner Hall left the meeting due to a self-identified conflict
of interest on water issues.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 15 of 16
ITEM 6 (Original Agenda New Business Item 4 – part two, legislative guidelines related to the
water utility): ACTION: Staff Recommendation that the Utilities Advisory Commission
Recommend that the City Council Adopt a Resolution Approving the Amended City of Palo Alto
Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines
Senior Resource Procos continued with part two related to the water utility. Procos provided a
summary of 2014 legislation of interest that impacted the water utility and then discussed
issues staff anticipates for 2015. He noted that the key State issues for water include water
sector GHG emissions, changes to the requirements for the Urban Water Management Plan and
issues with respect to low-income/disadvantaged communities. Key Federal issues include cost
allocation for the Delta tunnels and drought. Procos described each of the changes to the
water utility guidelines, which were provided as Attachment B to the written report.
Commissioner Melton inquired about water guideline #13 and if, given that groundwater
extraction in Central Valley is being called into question, this guideline would involve the City in
the tension between urban and agricultural use of groundwater. Procos responded that the
intent of guideline #13 is to support groundwater management, but as the City has made
investments in new wells and has certain assumptions regarding the use of those wells, the City
has an interest in ensuring that no new proposals may impact those assumptions.
Commissioner Melton agreed that adding the word "Palo Alto" to the guideline would better
clarify the intent.
Vice Chair Waldfogel discussed water guideline #10 and the issue regarding State Water Project
tax collections. He suggested the venue be adjusted to make it State + regional.
ACTION:
Commissioner Eglash made a motion that the UAC recommend that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the proposed Utilities Legislative Policy Guidelines for the Water Utility,
with the two proposed changes. Commissioner Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously (5-0 with Chair Foster, Vice Chair Waldfogel, and Commissioners Eglash, Hall and
Melton voting yes, Commissioner Hall recused from the motion and Commissioner Chang
absent).
ITEM 7: DISCUSSION: Update and Discussion on Impact of Statewide Drought on Water and
Hydroelectric Supplies
Assistant Director Jane Ratchye provided a brief update of the drought situation and its impact
on water and electric supplies. She reported that the 2012-2014 period is the driest year of the
97-year record period. In response to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC’s)
call for 10% water use reductions, the City’s water customers have done an admirable job by
reducing overall usage from 2013 levels by 15% and the SFPUC’s regional water system as a
whole has exceeded the 10% target.
Ratchye reported that the SFPUC expects to maintain the call for 10% usage reductions if the
hydro year is dryer than normal, but may have to increase the call to 20% usage reductions if
the year is critically dry such as in the hydrology of 1977.
Utilities Advisory Commission Minutes Approved on: Page 16 of 16
Ratchye indicated that the impact of the drought on the cost of electric supplies is significant
given the City’s heavy reliance on hydroelectric supplies. Staff expects that the increased cost
to purchase replacement supplies from the market to make up for less hydropower will cost
about $10 million more than in an average hydro year.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Melton and Vice Chair Waldfogel indicated that they will not be available to
attend the next scheduled UAC meeting on February 4, 2015.
Meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Marites Ward
City of Palo Alto Utilities
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2
FEBRUARY 4, 2015
Preliminary Financial Forecasts and Rate Changes for Electric, Gas, Wastewater
Collection, and Water Utilities
BACKGROUND
The attached presentation describes staffs preliminary forecasts for the Electric, Gas,
Wastewater Collection, and Water Utilities. The proposed Financial Plans and rate changes for
these utilities will be presented at the March (for Water and Wastewater Collection) and April
(for Electric and Gas) UAC meetings.
ATTACHMENT
1. Presentation: "Preliminary Financial Forecasts and Rate Changes for Electric, Gas,
Wastewater Collection, and Water Utilities"
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
#JONATHAN ABENDSCHEIN, Senior Resource Planner K
~ JANE RATCHYE, Assistant Director, Resource Management
VA*G
Director of Utilities
Page 1of1
1
Preliminary Financial Forecasts and Rate
Changes for Electric, Gas, Wastewater
Collection, and Water Utilities
Utilities Advisory Commission
February 4, 2015
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Financial Forecast Summary
Reviewing four funds: Electric, Gas, Water and
Wastewater Collection
Refuse rate projections included for information
Staff intends to propose Gas, Water, and Wastewater
Collection rate changes for FY 2016
Gas commodity rates vary with market
Forecasting the need for slightly higher FY 2016-2019
rate increases than forecasted last year
Financial Plans with detailed cost and revenue
information will be provided to the UAC in March/April
3
Preliminary Rate Projections
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Electric Utility 0% 5% 5% 3% 2%
Gas Utility* 3% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Wastewater 9% 9% 9% 9% 7%
Water Utility 7% 7% 7% 7% 3%
Bill Change** (%) 5% 6% 6% 6% 4%
($/mo) $8.88 $11.44 $12.10 $12.10 $8.04
Refuse 9% 8% 8% 3% 3%
Bill Change w/
Refuse **
(%) 6% 7% 6% 5% 3%
($/mo) $12.60 $15.15 $15.82 $13.64 $9.62
*Gas rate changes are shown with commodity rates held constant. Actual gas commodity
rates will vary monthly with wholesale market fluctuations
**Change in estimated median residential bill, $178.31 as of June 30, 2014 ($218.45 with
Refuse)
4
Comparison to Last Year’s
Projected Bill Changes
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019
Current
Previous
5
Change to CIP Reserve to be Proposed
Proposal to be included in all utility Financial Plans
Expand purpose of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Reserve:
Current purpose: To be used to hold funds to support large future
one-time projects when needed
Additional proposed purpose: To also be used as a cash flow and
contingency reserve for CIP expenditures
Why:
City will no longer automatically reappropriate CIP funds after FY 2015.
Reappropriations reserve currently acts as cash flow reserve for CIP program.
When CIP reappropriations stop at the end of FY 2015, the funds in the
Reappropriations reserve will be released.
The proposed reserves structure change would allow staff to move the
released funds to the CIP reserve
Proposal will include minimum and maximum guidelines for the
reserve
6
Electric Utility Financial
Plan, FY 2016-FY 2023
7
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
FY 2016: 0% rate increase
–Obtain Council authorization fora transfer of $11M from the hydro
reserve for year-end FY 2015
–Obtain Council authorization for$11.4M transfer from the Supply
Rate Stabilization Reserve for year-end FY 2015
FY 2017 – FY 2023 projected actions
–Complete COSA, implement July 1, 2017 or earlier if necessary
–Complete development of hydro rate adjuster along with COSA
–Use hydro rate adjuster and hydro stabilization reserves in case of
extended drought conditions
–Forecast assumes Smart Grid rollout ($3M/yr starting in FY 2019),
partially funded by Water/Gas Funds. Forecast assumes the
remainder is funded by the Electric Special Projects Reserve.
Electric Utility
8
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
Electric Utility
9
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Supply Reserves
Electric Utility
10
Supply Operations Reserve
Electric Utility
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
Reserve Maximum
Reserve Target
Reserve Minimum
Reserve (Year-End)
Risk Asssessment
11
Supply Reserve Adequacy
Electric Utility
12
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Distribution Reserves
Electric Utility
13
Distribution Operations Reserve
Electric Utility
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
FY
2015
FY
2016
FY
2017
FY
2018
FY
2019
FY
2020
FY
2021
FY
2022
FY
2023
Reserve Maximum
Reserve Target
Reserve Minimum
Reserve (Year-End)
Risk Assessment
14
Projected Rate Increases
Comparison to FY 2015 – FY 2019 Financial Plan Forecast
Changes in assumptions:
Slightly lower inflation rate for expenses
More CIP projects planned ($1M - $1.5M per year)
Commodity costs up $1M-$1.5M per year (added Hayworth solar, small market
energy price increases from last year as of the time of the forecast)
Electric Utility
15
Uncertainties
How long will the drought last?
Will second transmission line (resulting in TAC
savings) be built?
Cost of Smart Grid implementation, use of
Electric Special Projects Reserve
Electric Utility
16
Gas Utility Financial Plan,
FY 2016-FY 2023
17
FY 2016 – FY 2022 Projections
Gas Utility
18
FY 2016 – FY 2022 Reserves
Gas Utility
19
Operations Reserve
Gas Utility
20
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
FY 2016: 3% non-commodity rate increase
–PG&E Transportation costs projected to nearly double in FY
2016
–CIP costs projected to be $450K higher
FY 2017 – FY 2023 projected actions
–Ongoing 4% non-commodity increases
Reasons for increases:
–Higher ongoing CIP costs, primarily for gas main replacement
($500K to $700K per year vs. last year’s forecast) – Water
and Wastewater utilities experiencing similar increases
–Inflationary increases to operational costs
–Increase in PG&E Transportation Rate
Gas Utility
21
Projected Rate Changes
Comparison to FY 2015 – FY 2021 Financial Plan Forecast
Changes in assumptions:
PG&E Transportation Rate rising much faster than previously
projected. This has a much larger impact on PG&E customers than
on Palo Alto customers.
Higher costs for main replacement
Gas Utility
22
Uncertainties
Prices for main replacement currently 50%
higher than historical. Will that continue?
–Base case assumes they return to normal.
–Continued higher cost results in an additional
$1.6 to $1.8 million per year.
Is current rate of main replacement optimal?
–Gas System Master Planning Study underway
Gas Utility
23
Rate Changes under
Various Business Cases
Gas Utility
24
What Potential Costs aren’t
Included in the Forecast?
Potential Revenue Loss: Long term decrease in consumption
due to fuel switching
–Solution: This is a long-term policy issue requiring comprehensive
analysis in the context of the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
policy making process.
Potential Cost: Changes in design of Cap-and-Trade Program
allowance allocations after 2020.
–Solution: Assume current design will continue, but if there are
changes, pass through costs to customers.
Potential Cost: Additional cross-bore program costs.
–Solution: Current forecast assumes $3M additional for cross-bore
program in forecast period, actual costs could be higher. Staff to
return to Council in 2015 to discuss.
Gas Utility
25
Wastewater Collection
Utility Financial Plan,
FY 2016-FY 2023
26
FY 2016 – FY 2021 Projections
Wastewater Collection Utility
27
FY 2016 – FY 2021 Reserves
Wastewater Collection Utility
28
Operations Reserve
Wastewater Collection Utility
29
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
FY 2016 proposal: 9% rate increase
–$2.64 per month change on a residential bill
–Capital project cost increases
FY 2017 – FY 2023 projected actions
–Ongoing 9% increases, tapering down to 6% in FY 2020
–Assumes continuing increases in treatment costs,
operational costs
Wastewater Collection Utility
30
Projected Rate Changes
Comparison to FY 2015 – FY 2019 Financial Plan Forecast
Wastewater Collection Utility
31
Uncertainties
Higher main replacement costs seen in water
and gas occur here as well. How long will it
continue?
–Base case assumes no changes as of yet.
–Similar 50% increased cost case results in higher
costs of $1.5 to $1.7 million per year.
Is current rate of main replacement optimal?
–Wastewater System Master Planning Study
planned.
Wastewater Collection Utility
32
Rate Changes under
High CIP Cost Scenario
Wastewater Collection Utility
33
Water Utility Financial
Plan, FY 2016-FY 2023
34
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
Water Utility
35
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
Water Utility
36
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
Water Utility
37
FY 2016 – FY 2023 Projections
FY 2016 proposal: 7% overall rate increase
–Create separate commodity rate component
–Increase commodity rate to match SFPUC wholesale rate
(results in projected 7% overall rate increase)
–Do not increase revenue collected from distribution rates
–Continue to work to develop drought surcharge rate sheet,
but do not use drought rates unless SFPUC imposes
restrictions above 10% in 2015
FY 2017 – FY 2023 projected actions
–Distribution and commodity increases each year
–Use drought rate surcharges if drought lasts beyond 2015
–Separate commodity rate will allow immediate pass-through
of changes to SFPUC rate, drought-related or otherwise
Water Utility
38
Projected Rate Changes
Comparison to FY 2015 – FY 2021 Financial Plan Forecast
Changes in assumptions:
Slightly lower inflation rate for expenses
Load forecast methodology revised
Water Utility
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023
FY 2015 - FY 2021 Financial Plan
Current Forecast
39
Change in Load Forecast
Water Utility
40
Uncertainties
Capital Improvement Program Uncertainty:
1.Prices for main replacement are currently 50%
higher than historical. Will that continue?
–Base case assumes they return to normal.
–Continuing with infrastructure replacements in keeping with
budget and any safety considerations.
2.Is current rate of main replacement optimal?
–Results from Water System Master Planning Study expected
to be available in May 2015
–Could result in increase or decrease to recommended rate of
replacement
Sales Uncertainty: How long will the drought last?
Water Utility
41
Load Forecast: Drought Scenarios
Water Utility
42
Business Cases Considered
Scenario CIP Costs
Drought
Ends
Reduction
Level
Drought
Rates?
1) Base Case Normal Spring
2015
10%
2) One more year of drought Normal Spring
2016
10%
3) Two more years of drought Normal Spring
2017
10% Yes, Mar/2016 to
Mar/2017
4) High CIP costs for main
replacement
High Spring
2015
10%
5) High CIP cost + one more
year of drought
High Spring
2016
10%
6) High CIP cost + two more
years of drought
High Spring
2017
10% Yes, Mar/2016 to
Mar/2017
Water Utility
43
Rate Changes, Three Drought Scenarios
Water Utility
44
Rate Changes, Three Drought Scenarios, Assuming Main
Replacement Costs are 50% Higher (High CIP Costs)
Water Utility
45
What Potential Costs aren’t Included
in the Forecast?
Potential Revenue Loss: Extended drought, or 20% or higher
mandatory reductions required by SFPUC
–Solution: Impose drought rates
Potential Cost: Seismic rehabilitation work may be required on
Foothills transmission line
–Solution: Consultant investigating a solution in which the
transmission line is not replaced, and CPAU installs a valve and hose
system (under $2M cost) to bypass earthquake breaks to do repairs
Potential Cost: SFPUC will likely proceed with Mountain Tunnel
rehabilitation work
–Impact: Would affect commodity rates in outer years (after 2020)
and result in roughly a one time 3% rate increase.
Potential Cost: Recycled water project
–Impact: Rate impact to be analyzed in 2015
Water Utility
46
Conclusion
47
Preliminary Rate Projections
FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020
Electric Utility 0% 5% 5% 3% 2%
Gas Utility* 3% 4% 4% 4% 4%
Wastewater 9% 9% 9% 9% 7%
Water Utility 7% 7% 7% 7% 3%
Bill Change** (%) 5% 6% 6% 6% 4%
($/mo) $8.88 $11.44 $12.10 $12.10 $8.04
Refuse 9% 8% 8% 3% 3%
Bill Change w/
Refuse **
(%) 6% 7% 6% 5% 3%
($/mo) $12.60 $15.15 $15.82 $13.64 $9.62
*Gas rate changes are shown with commodity rates held constant. Actual commodity rates
will vary monthly with wholesale market fluctuations
**Change in estimated median residential bill, $178.31 as of June 30, 2014 ($218.45 with
Refuse)
48
Utilities Preliminary
Financial Projections
(FY 2016 forward)
Utilities Advisory Commission
February 4, 2015
Page 1 of 6
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMISSION
FROM: UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2015
SUBJECT: Update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Collection of All of its State
Water Project Costs via Property Taxes Instead of Water Rates
______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST
Staff is providing this update on the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s (SCVWD, or District)
practice of collecting of all of its State Water Project (SWP) costs via property taxes, instead of
water rates, for the Utilities Advisory Commission’s (UAC) information only. No action is
requested.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
For over 40 years, property owners in Palo Alto have paid, via their property tax bills, for the
District’s SWP costs. However, the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) receives no water from the
District or the SWP. Instead, the City receives all of its potable water supplies from the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). CPAU’s water costs have risen significantly in
recent years to pay for the substantial costs for upgrading the SFPUC’s regional water system.
Yet the District has chosen to recover a portion of its SWP costs from Santa Clara County
property taxes instead of from District water users.
Staff has raised the issue with the District several times over the past several years, but the
District has continued to collect all of its SWP costs from property taxes, instead of through
water rates paid by those who use District water.
BACKGROUND
The City of Palo Alto purchases all of its potable water from the SFPUC and has five connections
to SFPUC’s regional water delivery system. The City also owns emergency standby groundwater
wells to meet system demands during a local or regional emergency. Over the last several
years, the City refurbished five existing wells and drilled three new wells as part of the
comprehensive emergency water supply and storage project. The wells are able to meet a
portion of system demands during any emergency.
Historically, the City pumped groundwater to meet potable demands until the time the Cit y
contracted with San Francisco for water deliveries. Figure 1 below illustrates the historical
Page 2 of 6
distribution of groundwater use compared to use of SFPUC supplies in the City. The City no
longer relies on groundwater and has long term water delivery contracts with the SFPUC.
Figure 1: Palo Alto’s Historical Water Purchases
The District is the main water resources agency for Santa Clara County. It acts not only as the
county's water wholesaler, but also as its flood protection agency and is the steward for its
streams and creeks, underground aquifers and district-built reservoirs. Despite the fact the City
has independently secured long-term water supplies with the SFPUC, the City works with the
District on numerous water supply issues of interest to the City and the District. The City is
represented on the SCVWD Board of Directors, District 7 (Gary Kremen), and participates
directly on the Water Commission, the Retailers Committee, the Flood Control and Watershed
Advisory Committee, and the Recycled Water Sub-Committee.
The City does not purchase any water from the District (except for very small amounts when
testing its wells, or if the wells are used in an emergency). Residents or businesses with wells
pay the District for any groundwater pumped. However, in addition to charges imposed for any
usage of groundwater, residents and businesses in the City make payments to the District
through property tax assessments. Currently, the District collects the following payments
through property taxes:
Page 3 of 6
Clean Safe Creeks – A special parcel tax approved by the voters in 2000 to pay for a 15-
year program which will provide additional flood protection and other benefits to the
county. This tax was set to sunset in 2016, but an extension to 2028 was approved by
the county’s voters in 2012. The amount charged to a residence is based on the area of
the parcel and the land use category of the parcel (i.e. single family residence,
commercial and industrial, rural, etc.)
Flood Control charge – A benefit assessment (the amount differs by flood control zone)
to pay for debt service associated with past debt issuances for flood protection projects.
The benefit assessments will sunset in 2030 with the exception of the Uvas Llagas flood
control zone which sunset in 2013. The amount charged to a residence is based on the
area of the parcel and the land use category of the parcel (i.e. single family residence,
commercial and industrial, rural, etc.)
SWP charge – An ad valorem tax to pay for the contractual obligations associated with
imported water from the SWP.
The 1% county-wide ad valorem tax – A general tax available for any lawful District
purpose. In FY 2014, the District received about $68.4 million from this tax, of which
$5.1 million was directed to the Water Utility, $5.7 million to the General Fund, and
$57.6 million to flood protection.
Overall, in FY 2014, the District collected $27 million in property taxes for the Water Utility
Enterprise out of total revenues of $188 million; property tax revenue accounted for 14.4% of
the District’s FY 2014 Water Utility Enterprise revenue. According to the District’s FY 2014
financial statements, $21.9 million of the property taxes collected is for the SWP.
This memo discusses the City’s concerns with the District’s longstanding and inequitable
practice of collecting 100% of its SWP costs via property taxes, rather than via water rates.
SFPUC vs. SCVWD Water Rates
When the costs for SFPUC’s $4.6 billion Water System Improvement Program started to be
reflected in its wholesale water rates, SFPUC rates began to increase in comparison to District
rates. SFPUC’s wholesale water rates for FY 2015 are $1,425 per acre-foot (AF) while SCVWD’s
FY 2015 water charges are $847/AF for treated water and $747/AF for groundwater. Current
rate projections show the wholesale rate divergence continuing into the next ten years. Figure
2 below shows the actual and projected wholesale water rates for the SFPUC and the District.
Page 4 of 6
Figure 2: SFPUC and SCVWD Wholesale Rates – Actual to FY 2015 and Projections Beyond
DISCUSSION
One of the District’s sources of water is the State Water Project, operated by the California
Department of Water Resources (CDWR). The District can collect the costs associated with its
long-term contract with CDWR for deliveries from the SWP system through water rates, but has
chosen to collect 100% of its SWP obligation via property taxes. Staff estimates the District
collects over $1.6 million per year from Palo Alto property owners.
In June 2010, Utilities staff met with District staff to discuss the fact that since the City
purchases all its potable water supplies from the SFPUC, Palo Alto property owners’ SWP tax
payments to the District are used to offset water rates charged to other District water
customers.
In August 2011, the City Manager sent a memorandum to the City Council advising them of the
issue (Attachment 1). The memo outlines Palo Alto’s concerns regarding: 1) The District’s
practice of using property tax collections to offset District water charges; 2) the divergence in
SCVWD and SFPUC wholesale water; and 3) the potential increase in SWP costs related to “Delta
tunnels” being contemplated by the State which will further increase Palo Alto property tax
collections.
Page 5 of 6
In a meeting in June 2011, the District discussed its prior practice of providing an “In–County
Credit” for those agencies that partially or completely relied upon SFPUC supplies. Palo Alto
received the credit for 20 years until the District ended the policy in 1984. SCVWD CEO Beau
Goldie committed to evaluate the reinstatement of the In-County Credit in a July 2011 letter.
Subsequently, the SCVWD Board of Directors was notified of the intent to evaluate a successor
crediting mechanism.
In meetings and letters, the District has stated that the City’s residents and businesses benefit
from property tax payments for the SWP water because the SWP supplies provide the District
with flexibility in managing the county’s groundwater by introducing imported water to the
county and using it to recharge groundwater, reducing the likelihood of ground surface
subsidence and saltwater intrusion in the county, and ensuring that groundwater supplies are
available for emergencies.
If imported water supplies benefit the county, then so does the City’s use of SFPUC water.
However, while Palo Alto property taxpayers help lower the cost of District water, the entities
that purchase District water do not help lower Palo Alto’s SFPUC costs.
In May 2014, the SCVWD Board of Directors unanimously agreed to continue the practice of
collecting the SWP costs via property taxes for FY 2015. In July 2014, the SCVWD Board of
Directors discussed the SWP tax issue (see Attachment 2, the SCVWD Board memo) and
requested to have a study session in November 2014 for further discussion.
During the November 2014 race for the SCVWD Board of Directors seat for District 7, which
includes Palo Alto, the SWP tax issue was raised again (see Attachment 3). The study session,
originally scheduled for November 18, was rescheduled for December 16 so that Gary Kremen,
the new Board Member for District 7, could participate. In advance of the meeting, letters
were sent to the SCVWD Board by Palo Alto’s City Manager (Attachment 4) and the Purissima
Hills Water District (PHWD) General Manager (Attachment 5). Palo Alto’s letter asked the
District to “correct its practice of relying on property taxpayers to meet 100% of its SWP
obligations.” PHWD’s letter requested “that SCVWD eliminate the SWP tax on our constituents,
or in the alternative credit to PHWD 100% of the SWP tax levied on our constituents.”
The December 16, 2014 SCVWD Board Agenda item (Attachment 6) for the study session
included three discussion topics: 1) a review of the District’s Taxing and Pricing Policy; 2) an
overview of the SWP Tax; and 3) a review of SFPUC water management issues. At the meeting,
the Board discussed the issue generally but declined to change the practice or even to set a
date for a final policy decision.
The January 13, 2015 SCVWD Board Agenda item (Attachment 7) on setting the FY 2016
groundwater production charge shows that District staff assumed that SWP costs would
continue to be collected 100% via property taxes for the foreseeable future.
Staff (including the City Attorney's office and the City Manager's office} continues to work with
District staff on the SWP issues while the District prepares its FY 201S budget and wholesale
water rate proposals.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memorandum to Palo Alto City Council dated September 8, 2011 with attachments:
A. Letter from Utilities Director Fong to SCVWD CEO Goldie dated March 16, 2011
B. SCVWD Resolution 79-87
C. Letter from SCVWD CEO Goldie to Utilities Director Fong dated July 25, 2011
D. Excerpted SCVWD CEO Bulletin, September 13, 2011
2. SCVWD Board Agenda Memo Subject: "State Water Project (SWP} Tax Discussion" dated
July 8, 2014
3. Daily Post Article dated August 9, 2014
4. Letter from City Manager Keene to SCVWD Board of Directors dated November 14, 2014
5. Letter from Purissima Hills Water District General Manager Walters to SCVWD Board of
Directors dated November 18, 2014
6. SCVWD Board Agenda Memo Subject: "Water Management, Financial Incentives, and
Override Tax to Pay for State Water Project Costs Workstudy" dated December 16, 2014
(continued from the November 18, 2014 meeting}
7. SCVWD Board Agenda Memo Subjec~: "Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY 201S-16 Groundwater
Production Charges Analysis" dated January 13, 201S
PREPARED BY: t-NE RATCHYE, Assistant Director, Resource Management
DEPARTMENT HEAD: Ji;~AQ1 V_A_L_E_R-IE-0~.~~-lt"-N~G~l)~,.--~~~~~~
Director of Utilities
Page 6 of6
MEMORANDUM
From: James Keene, City Manager
To: City Council Members
Date: September 8, 2011
Subject: Potential Reinstatement of “In County Credit” from Santa Clara Valley Water District
to San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Customers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The price of water from the City’s wholesale water supplier, the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC), has doubled since 2008 and is expected to almost double again by 2018.
Meanwhile, the other water wholesale agency in the county, the SCVWD collects property taxes from
Palo Alto residents and business. These payments partially offset its water costs so that its water rates can
be lower. After staff brought this issue to the attention of the SCVWD, proposals to address it are being
developed. Staff is monitoring the progress on this issue and will report back when appropriate. Please
let me know if you want more discussion on this matter at this time.
BACKGROUND
Despite the fact the City does not purchase any water from the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD), the SCVWD collects the following payments from Palo Alto residents and business through
property taxes:
1.Clean Safe Creeks – A special parcel tax approved by the voters in 2000 to pay for a 15-year program
which will provide additional flood protection and other benefits to the county. The amount charged
per parcel is based on the area and land use category of the parcel (i.e. single family residence,
commercial and industrial, rural,etc.).
2.Flood Control Charge – A benefit assessment (the amount differs by flood control zone) to pay for
debt service associated with past debt issuances for flood protection projects. The benefits
assessments will sunset in 2030 with the exception of the Uvas/Llagas flood control zone, which
sunsets in 2013. The amount charged per parcel is based on the area and land use category of the
parcel.
3.State Water Project Charge – An ad valorem tax (based on the value of the assessed property) to
pay for the contractual obligations associated with imported water from the State Water
Project.
4.The 1% County-wide Ad Valorem Tax – A general tax available for any lawful SCVWD purpose.
There are 4 legacy collections that existed prior to Proposition 13 (1978) that form the portion of the
1% ad valorem tax that is distributed to the SCVWD. In total, the SCVWD receives about $56M per
year from this tax, of which roughly $4M is directed to its Water Utility, $4.5M to its General Fund,
and $47M to its Watersheds Division.
This memo discusses the issues surrounding property tax payments attributable to the SCVWD Water
Enterprise – specifically item number 3 above. Property tax payments related to SCVWD’s Watershed
Enterprise are not addressed here.
ATTACHMENT 1
City Council Members
September 8, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
One of the SCVWD’s sources of water is the State Water Project (SWP). The SCVWD has a long-term
contract with the Department of Water Resources for deliveries from the SWP system. As part of that
long-term obligation, the SCVWD can collect SWP costs via water rates, though the SCVWD has the
authority to collect funding shortfalls through property taxes. However, the SCVWD’s past practice has
been to collect the SWP obligation almost entirely via the property tax mechanism.
Palo Alto business and residents contribute a proportional annual amount to the SWP costs based on
assessed property values in Palo Alto. Due to fluctuating property values and other factors, Utilities staff
estimates the SCVWD collects $1.2 - $1.4 million per year from Palo Alto property owners. This
revenue source directly offsets the costs for those entities in the county that purchase water (treated water
and/or groundwater) from the SCVWD.
In June 2010, Utilities staff met with SCVWD staff to discuss the disconnect between the fact that the
City is a SFPUC water customer and the ad valorem property tax collections in Palo Alto are used by the
SCVWD to offset costs for SCVWD water customers. As you know, the cost of SFPUC water is rising
dramatically, is currently more costly than SCVWD water, and is projected to increase much more over
the next five years.
In March 2011, Valerie Fong, Utilities Director, sent a letter to SCVWD CEO Beau Goldie (Attachment
A) outlining the City’s concerns over the inequities of the current property tax collection mechanism. In
June 2011, Utilities staff met again with SCVWD staff to discuss areas of concern, including:
1. The general practice of using Palo Alto property tax collections to offset SCVWD water charges
(this is a discretionary action by the SCVWD board, which could, instead, choose to collect more
(or all) of the SWP costs from water rates);
2. The recent price divergence between SCVWD and SFPUC wholesale water and the fact that
property tax collections from Palo Alto residents and businesses help to hold SCVWD water
prices down, while Palo Alto pays for the higher priced SFPUC water; and
3. Indications that the SCVWD may try to collect a portion of new, Delta-related conveyance costs
via the property tax mechanism.
During the meeting, the SCVWD revealed its prior practice of providing an “In–County Credit” for those
agencies that partially or completely relied upon SFPUC supplies (Attachment B). Historical data reveals
Palo Alto did receive the credit from the 1960’s until the SCVWD officially ended the policy in 1984.
In July 2011, the Utilities Department received a letter from CEO Beau Goldie in response to the March
2011 letter (Attachment C). The letter officially recognized the SFPUC credit and provided a
commitment on the part of the SCVWD to evaluate the reinstatement of the In-County Credit. In
September 2011, the SCVWD notified the SCVWD Board of Directors of the intent to evaluate a
successor crediting mechanism in September 2011 (Attachment D).
NEXT STEPS
Staff supports either eliminating the ad valorem property tax collection in Palo Alto or the
implementation of some other mechanism that provides a tangible credit against SWP property taxes that
are collected in Palo Alto. Staff will work with the SCVWD and the other water agencies in the County
to reach agreement on an appropriate mechanism for the In-County Credit or other alternative. Staff is
actively involved in the resolution of this issue and will report progress, as appropriate.
City Council Members
September 8, 2011
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS
A. March 2011 letter from Valerie Fong to Beau Goldie
B. SCVWD Resolution 79-87
C. July 2011 letter from Beau Goldie to Valerie O. Fong
D. Excerpted SCVWD CEO Bulletin, September 13, 2011
cc: Val Fong – Director, Utilities
Molly Stump – City Attorney
Lalo Perez – Director, Administrative Services
Divisions
Administration
Director's Office
650.329.2277
650.321.[!651 tax
Public Relations
650.329 .2656
March 16, 2011
Mr. Beau Goldie
Chief Executive Officer
Santa Clara Valley Water District
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118-3686
Dear Mr. Goldie;
Qtyof Palo.Alt()
Utilities Department
During the FY 2011 groundwater and treated water rate setting process, staff
from the City of Palo Alto noted that the Santa Clara Valley Water District
(SCVWD) relies on non operating revenues from a dedicated property tax
levy to fund State Water Project (SWP) costs. This tax levy pays for the water
supply from the SWP that forms a part of the SCVWD's supply portfolio.
650.321.0651 lax ,
. . In June 2010, staff from Palo Alto held a conference call with members of
Cru;tomer Support Servicesyour staff1 to ensure Palo Alto's understanding of the process for collecting
C.'.'storner Service Om.rer S WP payments was complete. During the call, your staff confirmed that the
~~~:~i~:;~~ lax SCVWD collects SWP costs through a countywide property tax levy.
Credit ond Collection Furthermore, businesses and residents in Palo Alto contribute a proportional
6SO.:i29.2333 share of this total corresponding to the assessed property values in Palo Alto
650.617.3142 fax relative to the rest of the County. Due to fluctuating property values and the
Utility Marketing Services variability of the SWP revenue requirement, we estimate the cost to taxjlayers
650.329.2241 in Palo Alto for the last several years ranged from approximately $1.4 to $1:6
650.617.3140 fax million per year.
Fiber Optics
6.50.329.2241
650.617.3140 fax
Engineering
Electric
650.566.4500
650.566.4536 fax
Water-Gas-Wastewater
650.566.4501
650.566.4536 fax
Resource Management
650.329.2689
650.326.1507 fax
Operations
Electric
650.496.6934
650.493.8427 lax
Water-Gas-Wastewater
650.496.6982
6.50.496.6924 fox
It is our understanding this funding mechanism has been in place since the
inception of the Bums Porter Act that authorized the building of the SWP
delivery system. For over 40 years, Palo Alto's residents and businesses have
made these payments.
In addition to the discussion regarding the SWP collection process, SCVWD
staff discussed the operation of the water delivery system and the indirect
benefits to Palo Alto related to the SWP payments, including:
• Decrea~ed subsidence due to groundwater overdraft;
• Decreased likelihood of saltwater intrusion due to overdraft;
• Increased economic growth in neighboring areas that take delivery of
SWP water; and
• An alternative supply of water available during droughts.
1 Jim Fiedler, Amy Fowler, and Darin Taylor
'For example, in FY 09-1 O the SCVWD was authorized to collect $19 million for this
purpose (SCVWD Resolution 09-40)
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Prmted withsoy·ha!led inlc!; !Ip 100% recycled pitpN p1u~d withoi.:t chlt1ri-t1e
Mr. Beau Goldie
March 16, 2011
Page 2
Palo Alto does not dispute the fact that the multiple supply sources in the
County provide the flexibility to conjunctively manage water resources to
achieve the above mentioned goals. However, this perspective applies equally
to both the SCVWD and Palo Alto. In fact, Palo Alto's complete reliance on
its San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) supply relieves the
SCVWD of the obligation to build facilities to meet the water supply needs in
Palo Alto, allows for the re-allocation of Palo Alto's share of SWP water for
another agency's use, reduces the risk of land subsidence and saltwater
intrusion, contributes to economic gro¥1th in the region, and has contributed to
the recharge of the groundwater basin for everyone's benefit during normal
and dry years. Nevertheless, Palo Alto's taxpayers help lower the cost of
water for those entities that purchase SCVWD supply, but those entities that
purchase SCVWD supply do not make any contribution to help lower Palo
Alto's water supply costs.
Following the discussion with your staff, Palo Alto reviewed the origins of the
Bums-Porter Act and the contracts the SWP customers have with the
Department of Water Resources (DWR) as the operating entity of the SWP.
Based on this review, it appears the contracts for most SWP customers contain
language that indicates the intent that they should exhaust all feasible
collection alternatives prior to the imposition of a property tax levy to collect
SWP payments. Specifically, Section 34 of the contrdct3 contains the
following terminology:
34. OBLIGATION OF DISTRICT TO LEVY TAXES AND
ASSESS1WENTS.
(a) If in any year the District fails or is unable to raise
sufficient fundv by other means, the governing body of the
District shall upon written notice from the State levy upon all
property in the District not exempt from taxation, a tax or
Assessment sufficient to provide for all payments under this
contract then due or to become due within that year.
Palo Alto is not specifically questioning the SCVWD's right to collect
property taxes. However, the practice of relying on property taxes to pay for
SWP water should become a secondary collection methodology that supports
a primary collection methodology embedded in the ground and treated water
charges. This approach is more consistent with the language in the DWR
contract, and also appears to be contemplated in the original Burns Porter Act.
' Consolidated Contract through Amendment No. 23, 5128103
Mr. Beau Goldie
March 16, 2011
Page 3
Finally, it is important to work together to find a solution to this issue,
especially as discussions regarding new Bay-Delta conveyance gain traction.
It is our understanding the SCVWD is contemplating several methods to
collect increased SWP costs related to any new conveyance, including relying
on the current property tax methodology. Like the SCV\VD, the SFPUC will
likely be expected to pay its proportional share of any solution to this broad
and complex issue. It is troubling to imagine a situation where the citizens
and businesses of Palo Alto might bear a disproportionate share of the burden
by paying both via property taxes and SFPUC rates.
Please feel free to contact me directly at Valcrie.Fongiil\CityofPaloAlto.org or
(650) 329-2277 if you would like to discuss potential next steps.
Regards,
/\Atrf~
V ale~ie ~{~mg
Utilities Director
cc: James Keene, City Manager
Karen Holman, City of Palo Alto SCVWD Commissioner
Jane Ratchye, Assistant Director -Resource Management
Nicolas Procos, Senior Resource Planner
I
j
I RESOLUTION NO. 79-87
PJOVIDING FOR WATER IMPORTATION
l, TAX CREDITS
AND R PEALING PRIOR RESOLUTION THEREON
~~EREAS, the Distric1 Resolution of November 23, 1964 established :1n
tax credit to be paid age cies importing water supplies, which credit was
~· ••1 • :-determined upon a basis now not available by reason of passage of
"Proposition 13 11
• and I ' :
i .
import
to be
I.) ',J '
of Hetch Hetchy water of t e:·Gity .and County ·of. San ·Francisco int:d ·sant.a. Clara County;
WHEREAS, the Districf acknowlcdgcs a district '-w)de benefit from importation
NOW, THEREFORE, it i 1 hereby resolved by the Board of Directors of Sant'1
Clara Valley Water Distri1t as follows:
FIRST: Starting wit~ fiscal year 1979-80 and ton~inuing in each fis~al
year thereafter until ame~dment or cessation by this Board, the District w i ll
make a unit payment to eadh designated agency for each acre-foot of Hetc::h Hetcl)y
water such agency imports into Santa Clara Valley Water District in amounts ~ld
in the manner hereinafter $pecified.
A. The unit payment will he $7.SO per acre-foot for 1979-80 and
1980-81 fiscal year.s. For subsequent years such unit paymem::.
I
will be fixed hy j furrher resolution of this Board.
B. Payments to a deTignated agency wi 11 be made by .'Che District in
January and July j of each year for the Her ch lletchy wat.er imported
by such agency d~r~ng the previous six-month period upon receipt
by the Dis~rict bf copies of receipted invoic~s supplied such
. I '
agency by. the. Cify and County of San Francisco for Hetch Hetchy
water deliveries.
C. Designated agcncles are:
, City of Mil~itas City of Santa Clar~
City of Pal Alto Purissima Hills Coun~y Water Distrlc1
City of San Jose Stan ford University
City of Mou[tain Vj ew City of Sunnyva l e
SECOND: The Resolut~on of the District Board adopted November 23, 1964 on
the subject of imporT ta~ credits is hereby repealed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED J the Board of Oi rectors of Santa Clara Valley Water
District this 16th ~ay of October, 1979, by the following vote:
I
M. E. DI ULLE.A., f>. T. FERRA.RO, J. L lEt·m-l~~. Directors L. PERAl}A . A. T. PFEIFH:.R, C. RUSH, R. ::r. SAf'f""
AYES:
NOES: Direc~ors A.T. ffeiffer
I
ABSENT: Directors R.T. t app
I
I
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRIC T
ATTEST: SUSAN A. EKSTRA i D
I
TOTAL P .02
July 25, 2011
Ms. Valerie 0. Fong, Director
Utilities Depar):ment
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: State Water Project Property Tax
Dear Ms. Fong,
On May 23, 2011, we met with staff in your offices to discuss issues raised in recent communications
related to the State Water Project (SWP} property tax. As we understand it, your primary concern is
that the City of Palo Alto's taxpayers contribute funds to help pay the District's SWP costs, yet City of
Palo Alto resodents use primarily Hetch Hetchy Project water supplied by the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC). One solution suggested in your letter of March 16, 2011, is that the Santa
CIC}ra Valley Water District (District), coul_tj, con~i.der relying less·on the property t~x to: recover ·SWP costs,
and instead <~ollect a portion through w;;iter rate~ thatwouid be p.aid bythe District's:treatetj water ··
c.usto.rners-and groundwater users, . .
A~ our meeting, we discussed the interrelated aspects of our water management programs .. Although
the City of Palo Alto does not rely on the Santa Clara groundwater basin for its normal water supply
needs, groundwater is an important resource in times of emergency, as evidenced by the city's
construction of wells for its Emergency Water Supply Project. The multiple sources of supply in Santa
Clara County--including both the State Water Project and Hetch-Hetchy Project-benefit the
groundwater basin by providing the flexibility to conjunctively manage water resources. As described in
· your letter of March 16; both of these Imported water supplies help decrease potential groundwater
overdraft, saltwate'. intr~sion and l:and subsidenc;e. ·
The interdependency of these imported water supplies in meeting the County's water needs, protecting
groundwater resources, and sustaining Silicon Valley's economy leads us to conclude that Palo Alto's
taxpayers do derive substantial benefit from property taxes that support the SWP. The demand for and
availability of these sources of imported water are interrelated: Hetch-Hetchy water imported by the
city helps offset County-wicje demand for SWP water, and SWP water imported by the District helps
offset County-wide demand for Hetch-Hetchy Project water among .all the SFPUC common customers.
The District's investment in water supply infrastructure, including the State Water Project, establishes a
n~source:op~io,n tha.t has ongoing value for Palo Alto's water users, should the city have future needs
that capnot be m~:t by theSFPUC .. ' At the same tim.e, we rec~gnlze ~~att~.e.City; of~alo Alto is making
investm~nts in the. Hetch Het~hy Project that provld.e,ongoing value td other .District water users,'. : ' ·: .
. :•,·,
Ms. Valerie 0. Fong
Page 2
Continued
At this time, we are considering the reinstitution of an "in-county credit" for Hetch-Hetchy Project
water, similar to the credit previously adopted by the District's Board of Directors in the past. This
would recognize the benefits of continued reliable supplies of Hetch-Hetchy Project water for Santa
Clara County, and address concerns raised by your office. As we discussed, research into the District's
past policies revealed that, from fiscal years 1963-64 to 1983-84, our Board of Directors approved an
"in-county credit," or unit payment for each acre-foot of Hetch-Hetchy Project water imported into
Santa Clara County. Just before being phased out in 1982, the credit was $7.50 per acre-foot.
District staff is currently evaluating the potential basis of a new "in-county credit" which would be made
available to SFPUC common customers through agreements that acknowledge the value of reliable
Hetch-Hetchy Project water supplies for Santa Clara County. We anticipate further discussions on this
topic with the City of Palo Alto, other SFPUC common customers, the District's water retailers and other
stakeholders over the next six months. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, a proposal
could be ready for our Board of Directors to consider for the FY13 budget year.
Please let me, or Jim Fiedler, Water Utility Chief Operating Officer, know if you have any questions or
concerns about this approach. Staff will follow up with Nicolas Procos of your office in arranging further
discussion.
Sincerely,
'~
Beau Goldie
Chief Executive Officer
Santa Clara Valley Water District
cc: J. Fiedler, J. Maher, D. Taylor
Week of August 19 – 25, 2011
CEO Bulletin Page 2 of 5
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
Evaluation of "In-County Credit" to Acknowledge Value of Reliable Hetch-Hetchy
Imported Water to Santa Clara County (EL-9.7: Other)
Staff is currently evaluating the potential basis for reinstitution of an "in-county credit" to retail
water agencies in Santa Clara County that are customers of the San Francisco Public Utility
Commission’s (SFPUC’s) Hetch-Hetchy Project. Deliveries from the Hetch-Hetchy Project
augment Santa Clara County’s water supplies and help sustain groundwater levels in the Santa
Clara Valley area.
In 1963, when the District made the decision to enter into a contract with the State of California
for imported water from the State Water Project, the District also acknowledged the benefit of
imported water from the SFPUC. Accordingly, through agreements and by Board resolutions,
credits to retail water agencies were provided to assist them in the purchase of water provided
by SFPUC. Credits were offered from fiscal year 1963-1964 to fiscal year 1983-1984, when
they were discontinued by Board Resolution 81-44.
Recently the City of Palo Alto Water Utility staff raised concerns about rising Hetch-Hetchy
Project costs due to the SFPUC’s adopted 38.4% rate increase, and about ongoing
implementation of the State Water Project tax in Santa Clara County used to fund the District’s
State Water Project obligations. Both sources of imported water are vital to help maintain the
groundwater basin in Santa Clara County and prevent the return of land surface subsidence.
Staff met with Director Schmidt on July 28, 2011, to provide a briefing on recent
communications with the City of Palo Alto.
For further information, please contact Joan Maher at (408) 265-2600, extension 2073.
Permanente Creek Flood Protection Project Update (EL-9.7: Other)
Staff has recently completed a revised hydrology and hydraulic analysis for the Permanente
Creek Project (Project). This analysis shows that two alternatives remain available to meet the
Project objectives. These alternatives include the following project elements:
Alternative 1: Flood detention ponds in Rancho San Antonio County Park and McKelvey Park;
floodwalls, levees, and floodproofing downstream of Hwy 101; channel widening for
Permanente Creek upstream to confluence with Hale Creek; channel widening for Hale Creek
from Permanente Creek to Rosita Avenue; a new diversion structure; and a flood catchment
pipe along Cuesta Drive. This alternative would protect more than 2,400 parcels and cost
approximately $33 million, averaging $13,750 per parcel.
Alternative 2 would be identical to alternative 1 except that in place of the Cuesta Drive flood
catchment pipe, a flood detention facility would be built in the Cuesta Annex with inlet and outlet
pipes to Permanente Creek. The new proposed Cuesta Annex detention facility is
approximately 10 feet shallower than the previous proposal. This alternative would protect
approximately 3,000 parcels and cost approximately $40 million, averaging $13,333 per parcel.
The next step is preparation of a subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) showing
the changes made to the proposed project since the certification of the Project’s original EIR in
FC 1025 (09-20-13)
Meeting Date: 7/8/14
Agenda Item:
Unclassified Manager: J. Fiedler
Extension: 2736
Director(s): All
BOARD AGENDA MEMO
SUBJECT: State Water Project (SWP) Tax Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider information provided by staff and provide policy direction as necessary.
SUMMARY:
Since Fiscal Year (FY) 1979-80, the District has levied a tax called the State Water Project Tax
to pay its State Water Project contractual obligations associated with importing water from the
State Water Project. The purpose of this agenda memo is to provide the Board with an overview
of the State Water Project Tax including background, history, and other specifics.
Background
The State Water Project is a conveyance system that includes a series of 21 dams and
reservoirs, 5 power plants, and 16 pumping plants from Lake Oroville in Northern California to
Lake Perris in Southern California. The South Bay Aqueduct is a 40 mile branch that conveys
water to Santa Clara County from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is managed by the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The District entered into a contract with
DWR in 1961 to import water into Santa Clara County through the State Water Project and is
one of 29 State W ater Project contractors. Article 34 of the District’s State Water Project
contract obligates the District to levy a tax upon all property in the District not exempt from
taxation if other funding sources are insufficient. This decision rests within the discretion of the
Board. In addition, section 11652 of the Water Code provides that districts with water contracts
“shall whenever necessary, levy upon all property in the state agency not exempt from taxation,
a tax or assessment sufficient to provide for all payments under the contract…” Currently, there
are not sufficient other funding sources to pay for the costs of the State Water Project.
The State Water Project Tax is an “override tax”, which means that it is a tax in excess of the
one-percent cap imposed by Proposition 13 to pay for voter-approved indebtedness. State
voters approved the Burns-Porter Act in 1960, which included financing the state water project
facilities in part with state bonds. The District implemented the State Water Project Tax in FY
1979-80 after passage of Prop 13 reduced the District’s “5 cent” property tax revenues by 58%.
The State Water Project tax is restricted to paying for State Water Project contractual
obligations and cannot be used for any other purpose. This tax is collected county-wide and
makes up about 10% of water utility revenue for FY 2014-15. For many years the Board has
adopted resolutions affirming its intent to rely on the State Water Project tax to pay for 100% of
Page 1 of 5
ATTACHMENT 2
SUBJECT: State Water Project (SWP) Tax Discussion
(7/8/14)
State Water Project contractual obligations (See attachment 2 for Resolution 14-55 adopted by
the Board on May 13, 2014 regarding collection of the State Water Project Tax in FY 2014-15).
Benefits of State Water Project Water
The importation of State Water Project water provides several benefits to Santa Clara County
(County) including:
• Provides additional water supply
• Prevents subsidence due to groundwater overdraft
• Prevents saltwater intrusion due to groundwater overdraft
• Increases economic growth in the county due to the availability of State Water Project
water
There are two retail customers (the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District) in the
County that do not pump groundwater or receive District treated water but instead rely 100% on
imported Hetch Hetchy Water for primary water supply. However, in addition to the benefits
mentioned above, both the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District receive the
benefit of the availability of an emergency water supply source as a result of SWP water
availability.
In addition to the 8 wells used by the City of Palo Alto for emergency back-up, there are over
250 wells within the City used by private property owners as a source of supply. The boundary
of Purissima Hills Water District falls outside of North County Zone W-2. Purissima Hills Water
District has one monitoring well and possibly other active wells.
Both the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District benefit from the SFPUC intertie.
The District and SFPUC have an agreement in place which states that “the intertie will allow
potable water to be supplied in either direction during an emergency or planned critical work on
facilities which would otherwise be difficult to remove from service without the availability of an
alternate water source.” The intertie allows SFPUC customers in northern Santa Clara County
to receive and benefit from treated water (State Water Project water) from the District, just as
the intertie allows the District access to SFPUC water. Over the last 3 years the District has
supplied water to SFPUC on 4 occasions, some for a few days in duration, while others for a
couple of months. During the recent Rim Fire, the District was contacted by SFPUC and agreed
to stand ready to supply water to SFPUC Customers should the need arise.
History
In 1961, the 5-cent tax was established to help fund the water importation program. In 1963 the
Board established a policy to provide an “in-county credit” to those agencies that received Hetch
Hetchy water in recognition of the benefits provided by the imported Hetch Hetchy water. The
County tax office provided the credit to the appropriate agencies based on information provided
by the District. With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the District no longer received ad
valorem taxes as originally established but instead received a portion of the 1% ad valorem tax,
which resulted in a roughly 58% decrease in tax revenue in FY 1978-79. With the passage of
Proposition 13, it was no longer possible to determine the “in-county credit” based on the
Page 2 of 5
SUBJECT: State Water Project (SWP) Tax Discussion
(7/8/14)
historical formula. Consequently, the Board developed an alternative method to continue
providing the in-county credit directly from the District to the following agencies: Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, Purissima Hills Water District, San Jose, Santa Clara, Stanford
University, and Sunnyvale. The alternative methodology was a unit rebate rate of $7.50/AF of
Hetch Hetchy water imported into the county.
In July 1979, in response to the impact of the passage of Proposition 13, the Board initiated the
State Water Project override tax to pay for State Water Project imported water contractual
obligations. In 1981, the Board adopted resolution 81-44 which declared that the in-county credit
would be phased out. The rationale was that since SFPUC water and the District’s treated water
were roughly the same price, the Board could no longer justify providing a credit for water that
those agencies had an economic incentive to take anyway. By 1984 the in-county credit was
eliminated. In July 2000, a portion of the Water Utility ad valorem taxes (the former 5-cent tax)
was reprogrammed to flood protection and became the key revenue source for the Watershed
Stream Stewardship Fund.
State Water Project Tax in the South County
The South County Zone W -5 was established in 1987 with the merger of the Gavilan Water
District, which occurred about 7 years after the State Water Project tax was initiated. The South
County financial model was established that year to include a credit for the State Water Project
tax collected in the South County because the South County Zone W -5 does not receive State
Water Project imported water. This practice continues today and is reflected in the cost of
service analysis for South County. The cost of State Water Project imported water is allocated
100% to the North County Zone W -2 and 0% to the South County Zone W -5, while 94% of SWP
tax revenue is collected in North County Zone W -2 and 6% is collected in South County Zone
W-5. South County receives “credit” from North County for the 6% of tax collected in South
County. Accordingly, the SWP tax fund accounts for 100% of SWP tax revenues and costs.
State Water Project Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
The Board adopted a resolution to collect the State Water Project tax in the amount of $21
million for FY 2014-15. This equates to roughly $36.00 per year on the property tax bill for the
average single family residence in Santa Clara County. As reported to the Board during the last
budget cycle, if the tax were not levied the impact of lost revenue equates to $100/AF in terms
of the North County M&I groundwater production charge, $25/AF in terms of the South County
M&I groundwater production charge, and $575,000 in terms of the Open Space Credit.
The FY 2014-15 Budget includes a small amount for participation in the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan (BDCP). Going forward, BDCP costs are projected to escalate and are estimated at $228
million between FY 2014-15 and FY 2023-24. Staff financial modeling assumes that BDCP
costs associated with conveyance of State Water Project supply (approximately 65 million out of
the $228 million ten year total) would be paid for by the State Water Project tax. Consequently,
the State Water Project tax for average single family residence would increase from $36/yr to
$60/yr by FY 2023-24.
Page 3 of 5
SUBJECT: State Water Project (SWP) Tax Discussion
(7/8/14)
Other Agency Reliance on the State Water Project Tax
State Water Project contractor’s reliance on the State Water Project tax collected within their
respective jurisdiction varies from 0% to 100%. The following agencies rely on the State Water
Project tax to pay for 100% of their agency’s State Water Project contractual obligations:
• Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
• Coachella Valley Water District
• San Bernardino Valley Municiapl Water District
• Castaic Lake Water Agency
Agencies that rely on the State Water Project tax to pay for less than 100% of their agency’s
State Water Project contractual obligations include:
• Metropolitan Water District (8-10%)
• Kern County Water District (10-14%)
• Mojave Water Agency (84%)
• Zone 7 (50%)
Agencies such as Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District do not utilize the State Water
Project tax for paying their State Water Project contractual obligations.
Policy Questions for Board Consideration
There are broad Board policies that address the need for adequate financial planning, but no
specific policy regarding the degree of reliance on the State Water Project tax. The Board
considers staff reports and presentations, including projected groundwater production charges,
to determine to what extent the State Water Project tax should cover the District’s State Water
Project contractual obligations. The Board’s Pricing Policy (Resolution 99-21) recognizes the
need to keep State Water Project Tax funding separate, and that State Water Project tax
monies “are not available to the common fund.”
Some policy questions for Board consideration include:
1. Should the District continue reliance on State Water Project tax to pay 100% or less of
State Water Project contractual obligations?
2. Should the District continue current practices regarding how State Water Project
revenues and costs are accounted for in South County?
3. Should the District consider development of an overall water management policy that
includes the maximization of imported Hetch Hetchy water?
Page 4 of 5
SUBJECT: State Water Project (SWP) Tax Discussion
(7/8/14)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Depending on direction provided by the Board, there could be a future financial impact to the
District.
CEQA:
This is not a project under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Power Point presentation
2. Resolution 14-55
Page 5 of 5
THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 14
State Water project Tax
Discussion
July 8, 2014
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 14
Topics
1.Background
2.Benefits of SWP Water
3.History
4.South County SWP Tax
5.SWP Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
6.Board Policy related to the SWP tax
7.Board Policy Questions
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 14
Background
What is the State Water Project?
•A conveyance system that includes a series of 21 dams and
reservoirs, 5 power plants, 16 pumping plants from Lake Oroville in
Northern California to Lake Perris in Southern California
•South Bay Aqueduct is a 40 mile branch that conveys water to Santa
Clara County from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
•Managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
•SCVWD entered into contract with DWR in 1961 for water supply
•SCVWD is one of 29 state water contractors
•The contract obligates SCVWD to levy a tax if other funding sources
are insufficient
•Each year the Board sets the SWP tax amount by resolution
•Water Code section 11652 also obligates SCVWD to levy a tax to
ensure sufficient payment of the water contract when necessary
Attachment 1
Page 4 of 14
Background
What is the State Water Project (SWP) Tax?
•Override tax – a tax in excess of the one-percent cap imposed to
pay voter-approved indebtedness
•State voters approved the State Water Project and its financing with
state bonds in 1960 (Burns-Porter Act)
•Implemented by SCVWD in FY 1979-80 after passage of Prop 13
reduced the District’s “5 cent” property tax revenues by 58%
•SWP tax is collected county-wide
•SCVWD relies on the tax to pay for 100% of State Water Project
contractual obligations
•SWP Tax can only be used to pay for State Water Project contractual
obligations
•SWP tax accounts for 10% of Water Utility revenue for FY 15
Attachment 1
Page 5 of 14
Background: Breakdown of FY 15 WU Revenue Budget
FY 15 budgeted Water Utility revenue plus Open Space Credit transfer = $203M
10% or $21M of Water Utility Revenue comes from the SWP tax
$81.0M, 40%
Groundwater
$88.1M, 43%
Treated Water
$1.6M, 1%
$4.7M, 2%
$21.0M, 10%
$0.5M, 0%
$4.2M, 2%
$1.9M, 1%
SCVWD Water Utility
Revenue Sources FY 15
Groundwater
Production Charges
Treated Water Charges
Surface/Recycled
Water Charges
1% Ad Valorem
Property Taxes
State Water Project
Tax
Interest Earnings
Reimbursements &
Other
OSC Transfer
Attachment 1
Page 6 of 14
Benefits of SWP water
What are the benefits of importing SWP water into the County?
•Provide additional water supply
•Prevent subsidence due to groundwater overdraft
•Prevent saltwater intrusion due to groundwater overdraft
•Increased economic growth in the County due to the availability of
SWP water
What are the other benefits to customers who receive 100% Hetch
Hetchy Water (i.e. Palo Alto & Purissima Hills)?
•Emergency supply: groundwater for Palo Alto
•Emergency supply: SFPUC intertie for Palo Alto and Purissima Hills
Attachment 1
Page 7 of 14
Pre 1961 – Several cities contract with SFPUC for Hetch-Hetchy (HH) water supply
July 1961 – 5-cent county-wide tax established to start water importation program
Nov. 1961 – SCVWD contracts with DWR for State Water Project (SWP) water
March 1963 – Board establishes policy for in-county credit to agencies that receive HH water
June 1963 – Residents in Zone W-1 approve $42M bond for in-county distribution & treatment
facilities to optimally use SWP imported water. Paid for by W-1 debt service tax.
July 1964 – Groundwater production charges are established
June 1978 – Proposition 13 passes. District no longer receives ad valorem taxes as established, but
instead receives a portion of the 1% ad valorem tax (~60% reduction).
July 1979 – The SWP override tax is first levied to pay for SWP contract obligations
June 1981 – Board adopts resolution 81-44 declaring that in-county credit is no longer justified
June 1984 – In-county credit is phased out
July 2000 – A portion of Water Utility ad valorem taxes are reprogrammed to Watersheds
History
Attachment 1
Page 8 of 14
Water Utility Zones
•Zones W1, W3, W4 &
W6 are obsolete
property tax zones
•Zones W2 & W5 are
zones of benefit for
groundwater charges
Attachment 1
Page 9 of 14
SWP Tax in South County
•SWP tax collected county-wide beginning July 1979
•South County Zone W-5 formed in 1987 with Gavilan Water District
merger
•Since 1987, SWP tax collected in South County has been “credited”
against water charges
•South County Zone W-5 does not directly receive SWP water
•SWP cost allocated 100% to North County, 0% to South County
•SWP revenue collected 94% in North County, 6% in South County
•South County receives “credit” from North County for 6% of tax collected
in South County
•SWP tax fund accounts for 100% of SWP Tax revenues and costs
Attachment 1
Page 10 of 14
State Water Project Tax for FY 2015
Board adopted SWP tax collection of $21M for FY 2015
The SWP tax bill for the average single family residence will remain
the same at roughly $36.00/year
Assumes $500K average assessed value
If FY 15 SWP tax were not
approved, another funding
source would be needed,
impact equates to:
•$100/AF in terms of North
County M&I groundwater
production charge
•$25/AF in terms of South
County M&I groundwater
production charge
•$575,000 in terms of Open
space credit
Attachment 1
Page 11 of 14
BDCP Costs Projection and SWP Tax
Analysis assumes costs associated with conveyance of State Water Project supply would be
paid for by SWP tax
SWP tax for average single family residence would increase from $36/yr to $60/yr by FY 24
High Deliveries, 90% Participation, 50/50 SWP/CVP Cost Split Scenario
North South
$K CVP SWP Total Cost/mo*Cost/mo*
FY 15 307 120 427 $0.05 $0.03
FY 16 312 122 434 $0.05 $0.03
FY 17 400 157 557 $0.09 $0.03
FY 18 14,536 5,816 20,352 $2.94 $1.38
FY 19 14,631 5,853 20,484 $2.94 $1.38
FY 20 14,636 5,855 20,491 $2.94 $1.38
FY 21 24,917 9,970 34,887 $5.05 $2.38
FY 22 24,922 9,972 34,894 $5.05 $2.38
FY 23 34,243 13,703 47,946 $6.93 $3.27
FY 24 34,248 13,705 47,953 $6.93 $3.27
10 Yr Subtotal 163,152 65,273 228,425
* CVP and SWP impacts in terms of cost per month for average household
Attachment 1
Page 12 of 14
Board Policies related to SWP Tax
•EL -4.3: “A BAO shall include credible projection of revenues and
expenses, separation of capital and operational items, cash flow, and
disclosure of planning assumptions.”
•Resolution 99-21: “Some revenues such as certain property taxes are
specifically designated for debt service and the fixed costs of the
State Water Project, and are not available to the common fund.”
•SCVWD practice is to rely on the SWP tax to pay for 100% of SWP
contract obligations
Attachment 1
Page 13 of 14
Do other SWP contractors rely on SWP tax?
100% reliance on SWP tax
•Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
•Coachella Valley Water District
•San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
•Castaic Lake Water Agency
Less than 100% reliance on SWP tax
•Metropolitan Water District (8-10%)
•Kern County Water District (10-14%)
•Mojave Water Agency (84%)
•Zone 7 (50%)
No reliance on SWP tax
•Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
Attachment 1
Page 14 of 14
Policy Questions for the Board
•Should District continue to rely on SWP tax to pay 100% of SWP
contractual obligations?
•If not, what other sources of funding should the District seek?
•Should District continue current practices regarding accounting for
State Water Project related revenues and costs in South County?
•Should District consider development of an overall water
management policy that includes the maximization of imported
Hetch Hetchy water?
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT 3
~d sai<:flf elected,· he plans to over .ti.irri. it.·· . -
''One' of the aetion. itefµs I. hl!ve:_pqr~~e~\~~~pi:es~
dentq(th~~~~iR'
~·r11¢1ped get·Palo A1i<> b~ck:in the dis-
' cussions. reached. out to Mouritafu-yiew
·'.~~Jftt~1J~!i~~gether a coaliti~n-·
--· , ... < ·And he saiq'the taxes are expee;tedto. ·. s:Eirrb~ .. ,·~o .up···c~iisi3e.ra~ly:.~·.a"new bon~···~~a-_
. Right ri<}\v, a'b.Ome with· aii ·assessed_ vafoe of $1-
milliOP-P~Y:S about$72a.yearfoi: st11te.wsi:t~r,wh((th7r ·
·. ThetliXindease woilldbe used to fund Gov .. Jetty
Browri's •. $2S• b@bn J?lilirto ·btlilcit\Vo massive hlll1lels
tbiough the.SacciJ:herito£san·JoaCJ.Uin RiverDelta. . . ·
. Kremen says he wm lobby for ;tax. dollars to' be
speritoh Cities.that g~t thrif\yater ~lse\Vhere. . . • ... ·
He said ~tate water, which is· cheaper than Retch
Hetchy Water, could also be used as a backllp during
th~·~fZfu~~t~f/:\\iilitiljs the <lrllikirtgwater. for. the_ ·
restof.thi{watedlisfiict, c(>sts much less than the cur~
ren~ ~~tef; sl1ppiyh'1<.remert said. • '
•
ATTACHMENT 4
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto , CA 94301
650.329.2392
November 14, 2014
Tony Estremera, Director District 6, Board Chair
Brian Schmidt, Director District 7, Vice Chair
Dennis Kennedy, Director District 1
Barbara Keegan , Director District 2
Richard Santos, Director District 3
Linda LeZotte, Di rector Di strict 4
Nai Hsueh, Director District 5
SCVWD Board of Directors
5750 Almaden Exp r essway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear SCVWD Board Members :
On behalf of th e City Council, I am pleased to see that the District discussed the State Water
Project (SWP) ta x allocation at your July 8, 2014 Board meeting and will do so again on November
18. The District's allocation of 100% of its SWP costs to property ta xpayers instead of water
ratepayers is of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto . This is of course because City
residents receive no SWP water, yet Palo Alto ta xpayers contribute approximately $1.5 million
annually toward the District's SWP costs, and have contributed $19-$25 million over the last 30
years. The City raised this issue with the District over 4 years ago , but the District has continued
to collect 100% of its SWP cost s from taxpayers, while allocating none of SWP costs to ratepayers .
We thank you for di scussing the iss ue and encourage the Board to take this opportunity to make
a meaningful and equ itable change to the District's current practice. At this point, it is important
to build upon and correct a few statements made at the July 8, 2014 meeting and in the
accompanying staff memorandums for the July 8 and November 18 meetings :
1. Distri ct staff statem ent that all County re sidents, ev en those who receive no SWP water,
benefit from the District's parti ci pation in the SWP i s incomplete and potentially
misleading .
C"ty Of Pa l oAito org
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine.
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 2
First, the statement ignores the key benefit and primary purpose of the SWP: the
provision of water. The District's Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy requires the
District to "charge recipients for benefits received." Palo Alto receives zero SWP water.
This should be the starting place for any discussion of cost allocation for the SWP.
Second, as to any potential secondary benefits, such as avoiding subsidence and sa ltwater
intrusion and general economic development, the District ignores similar and offsetting
benefits that other users receive as a result of the City's use of 100% Hetch Hetchy water
and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) intertie connecting the two
systems.
Palo Alto agrees that having multiple water supply sources in the County provides the
District with the flexibility to effectively manage water resources. But Palo Alto's total
reliance on its SFPUC supply provides comparab le, if not superior, benefits to the District
and other users: it relieves the District of the obligation to build facilities to manage water
supply in Palo Alto, and it allows the District to reallocate SWP water elsewhere in the
County, reducing the risk of subsidence and saltwater intrusion, recharging groundwater,
and contributing to economic growth.
2. Contrary to statements made by the District's General Counsel at the July 8, 2014 meeting
and a memorandum prepared for the November 181
h meeting, the District is not "requir ed
to tax" to pay its SWP costs. The District has the authority to f und its SWP costs in a
variety of ways, includi ng through rates charged to water users. In fact, accordi ng to the
District's contract wi th the State Department of Water Resources, the Water Code, and
the Burns-Porter Act, property taxes are intended to be a secondary collection method
that provides assurance to bond holders that debts will be paid in yea r s when other
funding sources are insufficient to meet SWP costs.
3 . Staff's Jul y 8th and November 181h presentations provide helpful information about how
some other state water contractors recover their SWP costs. The District is one of 27
SWP customers; several collect their SWP costs entirely or primarily from r etail water
sales, not taxes. In fact, the two agencies that take approximately 70% of all SWP water -
Metropolitan Water District (MWD} and Kern County Water Agency -collect on ly 8-14% of
their SWP costs through taxes, and the rest through water rates. The Alameda County
Wate r District relies on taxes to pay for 50% of its SWP obligation.
The Metropolitan Water District's SWP cost allocation practice is illustrative. MWD
co ll ects on ly 8-10% of its SWP obligation from taxpayers. At the July 81h Board meeting,
the District's outside coun sel noted that this was due to legislation directing MWD to cap
the taxpayer contribution . Whi le that is true, the legislation was largely an outcome of a
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 3
lawsuit the City of Los Angeles filed against MWD in 1975. Los Angeles argued that
because it received little SWP water, MWD's practice of collecting the majority of its SWP
costs from Los Angeles taxpayers violated the law. The parties settled the suit in 1980,
when MWD adopted a "proportionate use" cost sharing formula, under which water sales
revenues paid operating expenses and an increasing share of MWD's capital costs.
Taxpayers' share of MWD's SWP costs decreased as water sales increased.
4. At the July 8th Board meeting, several Board members discussed what voters intended
when they approved the Burns-Porter Act in 1960, authorizing the issuance of state bonds
to finance construction of the SWP. The Burns-Porter Act ballot materials informed voters
that the SWP would not burden taxpayers. Voters were told that the system would pay for
itself through the sale of SWP water and power. Contrary to statements made at the
District's July 8th meeting, voters did not expect to be taxed even if they received no SWP
water.
5. The District's funding practices demonstrate awareness that it is inappropriate to charge
taxpayers for a water system they do not use. Until 1984, the Hetch Hetchy water users
(Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Purissima Hills, San Jose Municipal Water Company,
Santa Clara, Stanford University, and Sunnyvale) received an "in-county credit" in
recognition of the fact that they used littl e or no SWP water. While the District ended the
credit in 1984, it continues to credit South County taxpayers, who also receive no SWP
water, for the 6% of the District's SWP costs they contribute via property taxes.
6. During the July 81h Board meeting, the City's water conservation programs were
mentioned. It is tru e that the City and the Di st ri ct have a longstanding partnership
administering a variety of water conservation rebates and programs. In fact, the City has
a Memorandum of Und erstanding with the District, in effect since at least 2002, under
which both parties fund and administer ten different water conservation programs for
City water customers. Pro gram costs are shared equitably; the District does not cover
100% of these costs.
The City of Palo Alto greatly va lues its relationship with the District, and appreciates the District's
partnership on water-related issues like flood protection and conservation. The City wants that
to continue. At the same time, the District should correct its practice of relying on property
taxpayers to meet 100% of its SWP obligations. Thi s is particularly important during a time when
District staff is forecasting significant increases to SWP costs, even b efore the state embarks on
an ambitious plan to build water conveyance tunnels through the Delta that could incre ase the
current tax co ll ection even further. Doing this would be fair to County taxpayers who receive no
SWP water, and consistent with state law and promises made to voters when the SWP was
approved .
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 4
Once again , on behalf of the City, we thank you for discussing the issue , and look forward to
continued dialogue and to crafting a mutually beneficial solution . Please have Beau Goldie
contact me or my staff if we may assist in any way.
Sincerely,
cc : Mayor and City Council
Beau Goldie, CEO , Santa Clara Valley Water Di strict
Stan Yamamoto, District's General Counsel
Molly Stump, City Attorney
Val Fong, Director Utilities
ATTACHMENT 5
Purissima Hills
Water District
November 18, 2014
Tony Estremera, Director District 6,SCVWD Board Chair
Brian Schmidt, Director District 7, Vice Chair
Dennis Kennedy, Director District 1
Barbara Keegan, Director District 2
Richard Santos, Director District 3
Linda LeZotte, Director District 4
Nai Hsueh, Director District 5
SCVWD Board of Directors
5750 Almaden Expressway
San .Jose, CA 95118
Dear SCVWD Board Members:
26375 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Tel (650) 948-1217
Fax (650) 948-0961
~-our= 4.z 6
This letter is in response to some misconceptions that are created in Mr. Fiedler's July 28, 2014 memo to the
Santa Clara Water District Board of Directors. The memo lists a number of benefits from the State Water
Project (SWP) that SCVWD claims are received by Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) to justify the property
tax that our constituents pay. It appears Mr. Fiedler made these cl,aims without consulting with PHWD in
advance, as there are some factual errors. We would like to build a good working relationship with SCVWD, so
would like to correct these.
The letter stated "PHWD receives the benefit of the availability of an emergency water supply source as a
result of SWP water availability. PHWD has one monitoring well and possibly other active wells." In fact,
PHWD did ask SCVWD for emergency water supply, and SCVWD specifically refused our request in a phone
conversation between Mr. Fiedler and the PHWD General Manager in January, 2009. At the time SCVWD
claimed (1) it did not have sufficient water, and (2) it did not have sufficient treatment or pipeline capacity to
serve PHWD customers. Therefore the statement "PHWD receives the benefit ... of emergency water supply"
does not appear to be accurate. PHWD has not, does not, and according to Mr. Fiedler will not receive SWP
water.
Regarding the second point, PHWD in fact drilled two test wells in 2002 in a quest for additional water supply.
The locations were determined to have the best opportunity within our district for productivity based on a
report prepared by a hydro-geologist contracted by PHWD. After sampling the test wells, we discovered that
the water quality and quantity was so poor that the expense of developing production wells could not be
justified. As a result, we never produced water from the wells, and in 2011, the wells were subsequently
abandoned to CDPH and SCVWD standards and inspected by SCVWD. Therefore, SCVWD knew or should have
known that PHWD had neither a monitoring well nor an active well by virtue of its inspection and by
Setvice To The Hills Since 1955
SCVWD Board of Directors Page 2 November 18. 2014
examination of your own records. We certainly could have reminded SCVWD of this had the research for its
analysis included asking us.
The letter also said "Both City of Palo Alto and PHWD benefit from the SCVWD/SFPUC intertie. The intertie
allows SFPUC customers in northern Santa Clara County to receive and benefit from treated water (SWP water)
from the District just as the intertie allows the District access to SFPUC water." This statement is misleading
based on SCVWD published documents. It is our understanding that this intertie was constructed and is
maintained equally by the SFPUC and SCVWD. In other words, as a customer of SFPUC, PHWD pays its pro-rata
portion of SF PU C's construction cost, annual maintenance cost, and the cost of the SFPUC water supplied. We
understand from SCVWD published documents that "The lntertie pump station has allowed both agencies to
maintain treated water to its customers while preventive or corrective maintenance has been performed on
treated water pipelines or treatment plants." Since SCVWD and SFPUC share the expense of operating the
intertie, PHWD is in fact already paying for its share of the cost of the intertie. Further, SCVWD cannot claim
that the existence of the intertie justifies passing the SWP tax on to districts that do not use any SWP water.
Since we understand that SFPUC and SCVWD balance the water exchange between the two agencies through
the intertie according to section 16 of the intertie operating agreement, there is no reason to charge the retail
agencies for the cost of supply. Further, SCVWD and SFPUC have worked out in section 17 how to compensate
each other for water supply in the case that water is not paid back; this means that SCVWD's practice of taxing
PHWD constituents for the cost of supply would represent a double benefit for SCVWD. As you know, SCVWD,
and the retail agencies which rely only on SCVWD supply, do not pay for the cost of SFPUC supply.
Finally, SCVWD has already established a precedent on this topic: agencies which do not receive the SWP
water should be refunded the SWP tax collected from those agency's constituents. Stated in Mr. Fiedler's July
8, 2014 board agenda memo, SCVWD's policy is "to include a credit for the State Water Project tax collected in
the South County because the South County Zone W-5 does not receive State Water Project imported water."
Logically the same policy should be applied to PHWD, Palo Alto, Stanford, and others who do not receive the
SWP imported water.
In summary, it appears that SCVWD claims of benefits provided to PHWD are simply not correct, and are
supported only by a fabricated argument made solely to justify levying a tax on our constituents. We note that
the largest users of SWP water in fact rely primarily on rates rather than taxes to pay for the cost of SWP
supply, and that the examples chosen by SCVWD to support a 100% reliance on tax appear to have been
selected to deceive the SCVWD board into thinking that its 100% reliance on tax is somehow the norm. Our
request is that SCVWD eliminate the SWP tax on our constituents, or in the alternative credit to PHWD 100% of
the SWP tax levied on our constituents, much as SCVWD credits the SWP tax levied on the South County
constituents. We would be happy to work with SCVWD on alternatives for it to come clean on deceptive
taxation practices.
r , I~/) t-
P tri kWaltel~ Manager
Purissima Hills Water District
cc: Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors
Page 1 of 9
FC 1025 (09-20-13)
Meeting Date: 11/18/14
Agenda Item:
Unclassified Manager: J. Fiedler
Extension: 2736
Director(s): All
BOARD AGENDA MEMO
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider information provided by staff and provide policy direction as necessary.
SUMMARY:
On July 8, 2014, staff provided an overview of the State Water Project (SWP) Tax including
background, history and other specifics. The Board requested to have a workstudy session in
the November 2014 timeframe to delve deeper into the issue and to hear feedback from
stakeholders. In addition, during the Board’s Policy Review in July, 2014 the Board requested a
review of the District’s Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy. At the September 23, 2014 Board
meeting the District Counsel was requested to return on this date with responses to specific
questions raised with respect to the levy of ad valorem override taxes to pay State Water project
costs. A memorandum providing responses to those questions is attached (See Attachment 1).
Finally, at the September 23, 2014 Board meeting, the Board agreed to broaden the workstudy
session to include issues related to the management of San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC) water in Santa Clara County, given the close relationship to issues
related to the State Water Project tax.
The workstudy session is divided into three main topics of discussion:
1.A review of the Water District’s Taxing and Pricing Policy
2.An overview of the State Water Project Tax
3.A review of SFPUC water management issues
Taxing and Pricing Policy Review
Before discussing the Taxing and Pricing Policy, it is necessary to understand the authorizations
and requirements of the District Act as it relates to water supply management. Section 4 of the
District Act authorizes the District to provide comprehensive water management for all beneficial
District Act
ATTACHMENT 6
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 2 of 9
uses. Section 26.7 authorizes the District to collect groundwater production charges to be set
once per year with the option to do a mid-year adjustment. There are several requirements
associated with setting the groundwater production charges.
An annual report referred to as the “Report on Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies
(PAWS)” must be filed with the Clerk of the Board on or before the first Tuesday in April. This
report must include the staff recommended groundwater production charges in each zone for
the upcoming fiscal year, and the supporting analysis. A public hearing must be held on or
before the fourth Tuesday in April. For each zone of benefit, groundwater production charges
must be fixed and uniform per acre-foot for agricultural water and fixed and uniform per acre-
foot for all water other than agricultural water.
Under the District Act, Section 26.3, groundwater production charges are to be used for the
following purposes:
1. Pay for construction, operation and maintenance of imported water facilities
2. Pay for imported water purchases
3. Pay for constructing, maintaining and operating facilities which will conserve or distribute
water including facilities for groundwater recharge, surface distribution, and purification
and treatment
4. Pay for debt incurred for purposes 1, 2 and 3
The Board may establish zones of benefit in accordance with the District Act. The objective of
establishing various groundwater charge zones is to recover costs for the benefits resulting from
District activities within that zone. As provided for in the annual report on the Protection and
Augmentation of Water Supplies (PAWS), staff describes those benefits and costs which are
apportioned to zones by customer class. The groundwater production charge reflects the
benefit of District activities to protect and augment groundwater supplies and is applied to water
extracted from the groundwater basin in Zones W-2 and W-5. Zone W -2 encompasses the
Santa Clara groundwater subbasin north of Metcalf Road or the North County. Zone W -5
includes both the Coyote subbasin and Llagas subbasin from Metcalf Road south to the Pajaro
River or South County.
Board governance policies further guide staff in the effort to provide comprehensive water
management. Board Ends Policy E-2 says “there is a reliable, clean water supply for current
and future generations.” This policy is further broken down into the following objectives:
Key Board Governance Policies
• E-2.1: “Current and future water supply for municipalities, industries, agriculture and
the environment is reliable.”
• E-2.2: “Raw water transmission and distribution assets are managed to ensure
efficiency and reliability.”
• E-2.3: “Reliable high quality drinking water is delivered.”
Executive Limitations support associated good business practices. EL-4 says that “Financial
planning for any fiscal year shall be aligned with the Board’s Ends, not risk fiscal jeopardy, and
be derived from a multi-year plan.” Further, EL-6 states that “the BAOs shall protect and
adequately maintain corporate assets.”
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 3 of 9
The Water Utility taxing and pricing policy, Resolution 99-21 (Attachment 3), guides staff in the
development of the overall structure of water charges. The general approach is to charge the
recipients of the various benefits for the benefits received from the District’s comprehensive
water management program.
Taxing and Pricing Policy
The policy is based on several key concepts:
• Water Sources and Water Facilities Pooling: Both contribute to common benefit of users
within a zone regardless of cost.
• Water Resources Management: Taxing and pricing structures developed to achieve the
effective utilization of water resources for present and future populations
• Revenue Pooling: In general, revenues are collected in a common fund and not
designated for specific costs with the exception of the State Water Project Tax revenues
which are not available to the common fund
The general framework of the policy includes two zones of benef it, Zone W-2 in the North
County and Zone W -5 in the South County. The Board has the ability to create new zones or
superimpose new zones over existing zones. There are two major charges, a basic user charge,
which is equal to the groundwater production charge, and the treated water surcharge. The
policy allows for the implementation of specific charges for specific benefits. There are two
water user categories, which are agricultural water users and non-agricultural, or municipal and
industrial (M&I) water users. The policy allows for subsidies to optimize use of available or
future water resources.
Finally the policy places the following limitations on staff:
• The rate structure can be implemented only by Board resolution
• The Agricultural groundwater charge is limited to 10% of the non-agricultural charge
• Staff is authorized to prepare property tax collection resolutions for Board consideration
State Water Project Tax
The State Water Project is a conveyance system that includes a series of 21 dams and
reservoirs, 5 power plants, and 16 pumping plants from Lake Oroville in Northern California to
Lake Perris in Southern California. The South Bay Aqueduct is a 40 mile branch that conveys
water to three agencies from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta including Zone 7 Water
Agency, Alameda County Water District, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It is
managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The District entered into a
contract with DWR in 1961 to import water into Santa Clara County through the State Water
Project and is one of 29 State W ater Project contractors. Article 34 of the District’s State Water
Project contract obligates the District to levy a tax upon all property in the District not exempt
from taxation if other funding sources are insufficient. This decision rests within the discretion of
the Board. In addition, section 11652 of the Water Code provides that districts with water
contracts “shall whenever necessary, levy upon all property in the state agency not exempt from
taxation, a tax or assessment sufficient to provide for all payments under the contract…”
Currently, there are not sufficient other funding sources to pay for the costs of the State Water
Project.
Background
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 4 of 9
State voters approved the Burns-Porter Act in 1960, which included financing the state water
project facilities in part with state bonds. The District implemented the State Water Project Tax
in FY 1979-80 after passage of Prop 13 reduced the District’s “5 cent” property tax revenues by
58%. The State Water Project Tax is an “override tax”, which means that it is a tax in excess of
the one-percent cap imposed by Proposition 13 to pay for voter-approved indebtedness. The
State Water Project tax is restricted to paying for State Water Project contractual obligations
and cannot be used for any other purpose. This tax is collected county-wide and makes up
about 10% of water utility revenue for FY 2014-15. For many years the Board has adopted
resolutions affirming its intent to rely on the State Water Project tax to pay for 100% of State
Water Project contractual obligations (See Attachment 4 for Resolution 14-55 adopted by the
Board on May 13, 2014 regarding collection of the State Water Project Tax in FY 2014-15).
The importation of State Water Project water provides several benefits to Santa Clara County
(County) including:
Benefits of State Water Project Water
• Provides additional water supply
• Prevents subsidence due to groundwater overdraft
• Prevents saltwater intrusion due to groundwater overdraft
• Supports economic growth in the county due to the availability of State Water Project
water
There are two retail customers (the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District) in the
County that do not pump groundwater or receive District treated water but instead rely 100% on
imported Hetch Hetchy water for primary water supply. However, in addition to the benefits
mentioned above, both the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District receive the
benefit of the availability of an emergency water supply source as a result of SWP water
availability. In addition to the 8 wells used by the City of Palo Alto for emergency back-up, there
are over 250 wells within the City used by private property owners as a source of supply. The
boundary of Purissima Hills Water District falls outside of North County Zone W-2. Purissima
Hills Water District has one monitoring well and possibly other active wells.
Both the City of Palo Alto and Purissima Hills Water District benefit from the District/SFPUC
intertie. The District and SFPUC have an agreement in place which states that “the intertie will
allow potable water to be supplied in either direction during an emergency or planned critical
work on facilities which would otherwise be difficult to remove from service without the
availability of an alternate water source.” The intertie allows SFPUC customers in northern
Santa Clara County to receive and benefit from treated water (State Water Project water) from
the District, just as the intertie allows the District access to SFPUC water. Over the last 3 years
the District has supplied water to SFPUC on 4 occasions, some for a few days in duration, while
others for a couple of months. During the recent Rim Fire, the District was requested by
SFPUC and agreed to stand ready to supply water to SFPUC customers should the need arise.
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 5 of 9
In 1961, the 5-cent tax was established to help fund the water importation program. In 1963, as
part of a compromise which enabled the passage of a $42M bond measure in Zone W -1 to
begin construction of the in-county distribution system including the first water treatment plant
(Rinconada), the Board established a policy to provide an “in-county credit” to those agencies
that received Hetch Hetchy water in recognition of the benefits provided by the imported Hetch
Hetchy water. The County tax office provided the credit to the appropriate agencies based on
information provided by the District. With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, the District no
longer received ad valorem taxes as originally established but instead received a portion of the
1% ad valorem tax, which resulted in a roughly 58% decrease in tax revenue in FY 1978-79.
With the passage of Proposition 13, it was no longer possible to determine the “in-county credit”
based on the historical formula. Consequently, the Board developed an alternative method to
continue providing the in-county credit directly from the District to the following agencies:
Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Purissima Hills Water District, San Jose, Santa Clara,
Stanford University, and Sunnyvale. The alternative methodology was a unit rebate rate of
$7.50/AF of Hetch Hetchy water imported into the county.
History
In July 1979, in response to the impact of the passage of Proposition 13, the Board initiated the
State Water Project override tax to pay for State Water Project imported water contractual
obligations. In 1981, the Board adopted resolution 81-44 which declared that the in-county credit
would be phased out. The rationale was that since SFPUC water and the District’s treated water
were roughly the same price, the Board could no longer justify providing a credit for water that
those agencies had an economic incentive to take anyway. By 1984 the in-county credit was
eliminated. In July 2000, a portion of the Water Utility ad valorem taxes (the former 5-cent tax)
was reprogrammed to flood protection and became the key revenue source for the Watershed
Stream Stewardship Fund.
The South County Zone W -5 was established in 1987 with the merger of the Gavilan Water
District, which occurred about 7 years after the State Water Project tax was initiated. The South
County financial model was established that year to include a credit for the State Water Project
tax collected in the South County because the South County Zone W -5 does not receive State
Water Project imported water. This practice continues today and is reflected in the cost of
service analysis for South County. The cost of State Water Project imported water is allocated
100% to the North County Zone W -2 and 0% to the South County Zone W -5, while 94% of SWP
tax revenue is collected in North County Zone W -2 and 6% is collected in South County Zone
W-5. South County receives “credit” from North County for the 6% of tax collected in South
County. Accordingly, the SWP tax fund accounts for 100% of SWP tax revenues and costs.
State Water Project Tax in the South County
The Board adopted a resolution to collect the State Water Project tax in the amount of $21
million for FY 2014-15. This equates to roughly $36.00 per year on the property tax bill for the
average single family residence in Santa Clara County. As reported to the Board during the last
budget cycle, if the tax were not levied the impact of lost revenue equates to $100/AF in terms
of the North County M&I groundwater production charge, $25/AF in terms of the South County
M&I groundwater production charge, and $575,000 in terms of the Open Space Credit.
State Water Project Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 6 of 9
The FY 2014-15 Budget includes a small amount for participation in the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan (BDCP). Going forward, BDCP costs are projected to escalate over the next 10 years and
are estimated at $228 million between FY 2014-15 and FY 2023-24. Staff financial modeling
assumes that BDCP costs associated with conveyance of State Water Project supply
(approximately $65 million out of the $228 million ten year total) would be paid for by the State
Water Project tax. Consequently, the State Water Project tax for average single family
residence would increase from $36/yr to $60/yr by FY 2023-24 (approximately 6% per year).
State Water Project contractor’s reliance on the State Water Project tax collected within their
respective jurisdiction varies from 0% to 100%. The following agencies rely on the State Water
Project tax to pay for 100% of their agency’s State Water Project contractual obligations:
Other Agency Reliance on the State Water Project Tax
• Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
• Coachella Valley Water District
• San Bernardino Valley Municiapl Water District
• Castaic Lake Water Agency
Agencies that rely on the State Water Project tax to pay for less than 100% of their agency’s
State Water Project contractual obligations include:
• Metropolitan Water District (8-10%) – based on legislative cap
• Kern County Water Agency (10-14%) – Remainder, or 86% to 90% of SWP costs are
billed directly to member units
• Mojave Water Agency (84%) – current practice is that variable SWP costs are paid by
water rates, and fixed SWP costs are paid by the SWP tax
• Zone 7 (50%) - current practice is that variable SWP costs are paid by water rates, and
fixed SWP costs are paid by the SWP tax
Agencies such as Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District do not utilize the State Water
Project tax for paying their State Water Project contractual obligations.
SFPUC Water Management Review
SFPUC serves wholesale and retail customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Alameda, and
Santa Clara Counties. About 15 percent, or between 55,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) and
60,000 AFY, of the water supply in Santa Clara County is from the SFPUC. The SFPUC has
water supply contracts with eight customers in Santa Clara County – the Cities of Milpitas,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale; Purissima Hills Water District;
and Stanford University. Except for San Jose and Santa Clara, SFPUC customers have
Individual Supply Guarantees (ISGs), which guarantee access to certain minimum quantities of
water. The water supply contracts between SFPUC and San Jose and Santa Clara are
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 7 of 9
temporary and interruptible. San Francisco can issue a five-year notice of supply interruption or
reduction to San Jose and Santa Clara if wholesale demands on the SFPUC Regional Water
System are projected to exceed 184 million gallons per day (MGD) in 2018. SFPUC is
scheduled to decide whether to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers by
December 31, 2018. In addition to the contractual relationship between SFPUC and customers
in the county, SFPUC and the District have an agreement for operations and maintenance of
the intertie in Milpitas. The intertie improves system reliability for SFPUC, the District, and our
customers.
The total of ISGs for SFPUC customers in Santa Clara County is almost 64,000 AFY, which is in
excess of total current and projected demands. However, individual customers’ demands and
their ISGs do not match up. Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale demands are
below their ISG, in part due to demands and in part due to the availability of lower cost District
supplies. Purissima Hills Water District and Stanford demands exceed their ISGs and San Jose
and Santa Clara do not have ISGs. As long as SFPUC’s systemwide wholesale customer
demands in the system are below 184 MGD in normal years, customers can take additional
water to meet their demands, subject to operational constraints and contractual limits on the
place of SFPUC water use. Deliveries can be reduced in droughts and other water supply
shortages.
The District’s 2012 Water Supply and Infrastructure Master Plan (Water Supply Master Plan)
assumes long-term average SFPUC deliveries of 62,000 AFY to the county and that San Jose
and Santa Clara become permanent SFPUC customers. If these assumptions are inaccurate,
the District would need to develop additional supplies and/or water conservation measures on
top of the water recycling and water conservation goals in the Water Supply Master Plan.
SFPUC is currently evaluating water supply options for meeting long-term demands, making
San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, and improving drought supply reliability. In
addition, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), which represents
SFPUC’s systemwide wholesale customers including those in Santa Clara County, is
developing a long-term strategy for addressing their member agencies’ water supply needs.
These planning efforts are complementary and provide an opportunity to look at new
partnerships and SFPUC water management options in Santa Clara County.
Interests in SFPUC water management in Santa Clara County that have been expressed by
some water retailers and other stakeholders include reducing costs by using lower cost District
supplies instead of SFPUC supplies, increasing access to District treated water supplies to
improve reliability and/or reduce costs, improving water supply and infrastructure reliability,
maintaining ISGs and other provisions in the contracts between SFPUC and its wholesale
customers, and reducing State Water Project taxes.
Some of the options for SFPUC water management in Santa Clara County include:
• Operations Agreement: The District could enter into agreement with SFPUC and its
customers in Santa Clara County to be the operating entity for SFPUC supplies in the
county. Each customer would retain its ISG, but the District would have more access to
SFPUC supplies in the county and more flexibility in source selection. However, SFPUC
customers might be reluctant to reduce their independence regarding SFPUC supplies
and negotiations could re-open provisions in their water supply agreements with SFPUC.
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 8 of 9
• Joint Development of New Supplies: The District could partner with SFPUC to develop
new supplies, so that SFPUC can justify making San Jose and Santa Clara permanent
customers with ISGs. These new supplies could include potable reuse and would need
to be in addition to the new supplies identified in the Water Supply Master Plan.
Depending on their type, the new supplies could improve drought supply reliability in the
county and, perhaps, throughout the SFPUC system.
• Incentives to Common Customers: The District could offer financial incentives to
SFPUC customers in the county to encourage them to use higher-cost SFPUC supplies,
which is allowed under District Act Section 5.14. Currently, the difference between
SFPUC supplies and District treated water supplies is about $429/AF. Over the next 10-
years, the maximum difference in costs is projected to be $634/AF in FY 2019.
Additional analysis would be necessary to evaluate the appropriate level of incentive, as
well as the costs and benefits for the zone(s) of benefit.
• West Side Intertie: Some customers have expressed an interest in an intertie between
the District’s treated water system on the west side of the county and the SFPUC
Regional Water System. The intertie could provide redundancy on the west side of the
District’s treated water system, improve system reliability, and provide access to treated
water for Palo Alto and, perhaps, Purissima Hills.
• Water Transfers and/or Banking: The District and SFPUC could partner on water
transfer and/or banking agreements. The SFPUC service area includes parts of
Stanislaus and San Joaquin Counties, so there may be opportunities that would not be
available to the District alone. Likewise, partnering with the District may provide new
opportunities to the SFPUC.
• Combination: Different water management options could be combined to maximize
benefits. For example, water transfers and/or banking agreements could be more useful
when combined with the West Side Intertie, since the intertie could be used to convey
water for banking in Santa Clara County.
Staff has identified the following criteria for evaluating SFPUC water management options:
• Secures long-term average SFPUC supplies of at least 62,000 AFY in Santa Clara
County
• Secures permanent contracts for San Jose and Santa Clara
• Provides for individual customer demands
• Improves drought reliability
• Meets customer interests
• Is coordinated with SFPUC and BAWSCA efforts
• Is cost-effective
SUBJECT: Water Management, Financial Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for State
Water Project Costs Workstudy
(11/18/14)
Page 9 of 9
Staff will continue discussions with SFPUC, BAWSCA, and retailers on water management
options. Any pertinent Board direction will be incorporated into those discussions.
Policy Questions for Board Consideration
There are broad Board policies that address the need for adequate financial planning, but no
specific policy regarding the degree of reliance on the State Water Project tax. The Board
considers staff reports and presentations, including projected groundwater production charges,
to determine to what extent the State Water Project tax should cover the District’s State Water
Project contractual obligations. The Board’s Pricing Policy (Resolution 99-21) recognizes the
need to keep State Water Project Tax funding separate, and that State Water Project tax
monies “are not available to the common fund.”
Some policy questions for Board consideration include:
1. Should the District continue reliance on State Water Project tax to pay 100% or less of
State Water Project contractual obligations?
2. Should the District continue current practices regarding how State Water Project
revenues and costs are accounted for in South County?
3. Should the District consider development of an overall water management policy that
includes the maximization of imported Hetch Hetchy water for the benefit of the County?
4. Are changes warranted to the Taxing and Pricing Policy or Board Governance Policies?
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Depending on direction provided by the Board, there could be a future financial impact to the
District and rate payers.
CEQA:
This is not a project under CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. District Counsel Memorandum
2. Power Point presentation
3. Resolution 99-21
4. Resolution 14-55
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Sanla Clara Valley Waler Distrid 6
TO:
SUBJECT:
Board of Directors
Ad Valorem Override Tax To Pay State
Water Project Costs
Questions from
September 23, 2014 Board Meeting
PURPOSE OF MEMORANDUM
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Stan T . Yamamoto
DATE: November 18 , 2014
The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit responses to questions posed to the District
Counsel 's Office during the September 23 , 2014 Board discussion with respect to the use of ad
valorem ("according to value") override taxes (hereinafter "override tax") to pay State Water
Project costs.
Question: What, if any, difference exists between an override tax and a special benefit
assessment?
Response: The override tax is a tax on real property . "Generally speaking , the function of a
property tax is to raise revenue ." (Douglas Aircraft Company v. Johnson 13 Cal.2d .545 , 550
(1939); see, City of Huntington Beach v. Superior Court of Orange County, 78 Cal.App.3d 333
(1978). Second , it is an "override" tax as it exceeds the one percent tax limitation set forth in
section 1 (a) of article XlllA of the State Constitution and has as its purpose to pay an
indebtedness approved by the voters prior to July 1, 1978 (Cal. Const., art. XlllA, § 1 (b)(1 )).
And , third , " ... a special tax is one levied to fund a specific governmental project or program such
as the construction and financing of the County's justice facilities" (Rider v. County of San Diego
1 Cal.4th1 , 15 (1991 ). In this instance, the purpose of the override tax is to pay the District's
portion of costs attributable to the operation, maintenance and replacement of the State Water
Project. In short, this special tax generates funds for a specific purpose without regard to
whether any specific taxpayer/property owner receives any specific benefit. To the contrary is a
special benefit assessment. Such assessments are levied to pay for specifically identified
public improvements or services that specifically benefit the properties or businesses subject to
the assessment. (See, Cal. Const., art. XlllD, § 2(b)) It is distinguishable from a property
related special tax by the fact that a special assessment, being a charge for benefits conferred
upon the property, cannot exceed the benefits the assessed property receives from the
improvement. (Spring Street Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1915) 170 Cal.30 (1915)). In short, the
amount of the assessment must be proportional to, and no greater than, the benefits conferred
on the property or properties in question. (Cal. Const., art. XlllD, § 4).
Question: Are there any legal impediments to continue as we are now (levying of override tax)
or are there legal impediments to doing so?
Response: The levying of an override tax to pay for the District's portion of State Water Project
costs may lawfully continue , and from a contractual standpoint must continue whenever the
Board of Directors finds such taxes to be necessary. The legislative hi story of the State Water
Project makes clear that the State Department of Water Resources ("DWR") was only to ente r
into water contracts with public agencies having taxing powers and with the additional
requirement that its contracts provide for the mandatory use of local taxes . This legislative
intent is codified in section 11652 of the Water Code ,
Attachment 1
Page 1 of 3
Confidential Attorney/Client Communication
November 18, 2014
Ad Valorem Override Tax To Pay State Water Project Costs
Page 2
The governing body sha ll , whenever necessary, levy upon all property in the
state agency not exempt from taxation , a ta x or assessment sufficient to provide
for all payments under the contract then due or to become due within the then
current fiscal year or within the following fiscal year before the time when money
will be available from the next general tax levy. ('State agency' includ es local
water agencies , W.C. 11102)
This same legislative intent is captured in article 34(a) of the District's State Water Project
contract,
If in any year the District fails or is unable to raise sufficient funds by other
means , the governing body of the District shall upon written notice from the State
levy upon all property in the District not exempt from taxation, a tax or
assessment sufficient to provide for all payments under this contract then due or
to become due within that year.
Further, Goodman v . County of Riverside 140 Cal.App .3d . 900 (1983) affirms the authority of
public water agencies to levy ad valorem taxes to pay for their contractual share of State Water
Project costs. In that case , property owners within the Desert Water Agency challenged the
Agency's levy but the court concluded ,
" ... when the state 's voters approved the Act (Burns-Porter), that they approved
an indebtedness in the amount necessary for building , operating , maintaining,
and replacing the Project, and that they intended that the costs were to be met by
payments from local agencies with water contracts. Further, we conclude that
the voters necessarily approved the use of local property taxes whenever the
boards of directors for the agencies determined such use to be necessary to fund
their water contract obligations ... "
Therefore , consistent with the Goodman decision , section 11652, and article 34(a), it is
reasonab le to conclude that it is legally appropriate for the District to levy override taxes when
necessary to pay the District's contractual share of State Water Project costs .
Question: City X pays $1 OM a year in override taxes to pay a portion of the District's
contractual obligation for State Water Project costs . City X receives $1M from the District in
water conservation funding and District desire to provide City X with a credit of $9M to be used
to enhance water conservation and water recycling. Would the levy of the override ta x be a
legal impediment to providing such a cred it ?
Response: In responding to this hypothetical scenario , some foundational facts need be set
forth . First , most if not all override taxes would be pa id by real property owners other than City
X as public entities are generally exempt by federal or state law from paying property taxes.
Second , the hypothetical is proposing that City X is the recipient of the proposed credit as
opposed to the real property owners who had actually paid the override tax. Third , the District is
obligated to keep all tax revenue received from the levy of the override tax in a separate fund to
be paid over to DWR to satisfy the contractual amount then due . (Water Code§ 11654) Thus ,
the use of such tax revenue is limited to paying State Water Project costs.
Attachment 1
Page 2 of 3
Confidential Attorney/Clie nt Communication
November 18 , 2014
Ad Valorem Override Tax To Pay State Water Project Costs
Page 3
Recognizing the above , it would not appear that the levying of override taxes would impede the
ability of the District to co nsider a credit program as hypothesized above . While any such credit
program may have its own legal challenges, the on ly association between the program and the
levy would be deriving the sum to be credited . Independent of any such program, the requisite
elements for levying the override ta x would remain : (i) override taxes would only be sought if
found to be necessary by the Board of Directors (W.C . 11652); (ii) the total amount of the levy
would not exceed the District's contractual obligation to DWR which is then due or will become
due in order to qualify as an override tax (Cal. Const., art. 13A § 1(b)(1)); and (iii) the revenues
received would be held and distributed pursuant to Water Code§ 11654.
Stan T . Yama ryo o
District Coun (el
'
Attachment 1
Page 3 of 3
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment 2
Page 1 of 26
Water Management, Financial
Incentives, and Override Tax to Pay for
State Water Project Costs Workstudy
November 18, 2014
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 26
Purpose of Workstudy
•Continue 7/8/14 discussion on State Water Project Tax
•Broaden discussion to include:
•SFPUC water management issues and,
•Review of the District’s Water Utility Taxing and Pricing
Policy
•Hear feedback from stakeholders
Attachment 2
Page 3 of 26
Topics
1.Pricing Policy Review
•District Act
•Board Policies
•Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy
2.State Water Project Tax
•Background
•History
•SWP Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
3.SFPUC Water Management Review
•Water Management Options
4.Board Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 26
•Authorizes District “to provide comprehensive water management for
all beneficial uses…” [Section 4]
•Authorizes Board to collect groundwater production charges to be
set once per year [Section 26.7]
•Option to do mid-year adjustment (added in 1992)
•Also authorizes levy of taxes or assessments [Section 5]
•Requires publication of Annual Report on Protection and
Augmentation of Water Supplies (PAWS) [Section 26.5]
•Requires public hearing [Section 26.6]
•Surface, Treated & Recycled water rates can be set separately
•Requires establishment of zones of benefit [Section 26.2]
District Act Authorizations and Requirements
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 5 of 26
Water Utility Zones
•Zones W1, W3, W4 &
W6 are obsolete
property tax zones
•Zones W2 & W5 are
zones of benefit for
groundwater charges
Attachment 2
Page 6 of 26
District Act Section 26.3: Defines purposes of groundwater
production charges that can be imposed on a zone of benefit
1.Pay for construction, operation and maintenance of
imported water facilities
2.Pay for imported water purchases
3.Pay for constructing, maintaining and operating facilities
which will conserve or distribute water including facilities
for groundwater recharge, surface distribution, and
purification and treatment
4.Pay for debt incurred for purposes 1, 2 and 3
District Act Defines Uses for Groundwater Charges
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 7 of 26
Key Board Policies related to the Water Utility
E-2: “There is a reliable, clean water supply for current and future
generations.”
•E-2.1: “Current and future water supply for municipalities,
industries, agriculture and the environment is reliable.”
•E-2.2: “Raw water transmission and distribution assets are
managed to ensure efficiency and reliability.”
•E-2.3: “Reliable high quality drinking water is delivered.”
EL-4: “Financial planning for any fiscal year shall be aligned with
the Board’s Ends, not risk fiscal jeopardy, and be derived
from a multi-year plan.”
EL-6: “The BAOs shall protect and adequately maintain corporate
assets.”
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 8 of 26
General approach:
•Charge recipients for benefits received
Taxing and Pricing Concepts:
•Water Sources and Water Facilities Pooling: Both contribute to
common benefit of users within a zone regardless of cost.
•Water Resources Management: Taxing and pricing structures
developed to achieve the effective utilization of water resources for
present and future populations
•Revenue Pooling: In general, revenues are collected in a common
fund and not designated for specific costs
•State Water Project Tax revenues not available to the common fund
Breakdown of Water Utility Taxing & Pricing Policy
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 9 of 26
General Framework:
•Two Zones of Benefit
•W-2: North County
•W-5: South County
•Ability to create new zones or superimpose new zone over existing zones
•Two Major Charges
•Basic User Charge (equal to the Groundwater Production Charge)
•Treated Water Surcharge (Contract & Non-contract)
•Ability to implement a specific charge for specific benefits
•Two User Categories
•Municipal & Industrial (M&I)
•Agricultural
•Ability to provide incentives/subsidies to optimize available resources
Breakdown of Water Utility Taxing & Pricing Policy Cont.
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 10 of 26
Executive and Staff Limitations:
•Rate structure implemented only by Board resolution
•Agricultural groundwater charge limited to 10% of M&I charge
•Staff authorized to prepare property tax collection resolutions for
Board consideration
Breakdown of Water Utility Taxing & Pricing Policy Cont.
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 11 of 26
Topics
1.Pricing Policy Review
•District Act
•Board Policies
•Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy
2.State Water Project Tax
•Background
•History
•SWP Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
3.SFPUC Water Management Review
•Water Management Options
4.Board Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 12 of 26
SWP Background
What is the State Water Project?
•A conveyance system that includes a series of 21 dams and
reservoirs, 5 power plants, 16 pumping plants from Lake Oroville in
Northern California to Lake Perris in Southern California
•South Bay Aqueduct is a 40 mile branch that conveys water to Santa
Clara County from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
•Managed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
•SCVWD entered into contract with DWR in 1961 for water supply
•SCVWD is one of 29 state water contractors
•The contract obligates SCVWD to levy a tax if other funding sources
are insufficient
•Each year the Board sets the SWP tax amount by resolution
•Water Code section 11652 also obligates SCVWD to levy a tax to
ensure sufficient payment of the water contract when necessary
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 13 of 26
SWP Background
What is the State Water Project (SWP) Tax?
•Override tax – a tax in excess of the one-percent cap imposed to
pay voter-approved indebtedness
•State voters approved the State Water Project and its financing with
state bonds in 1960 (Burns-Porter Act)
•Tax implemented by SCVWD in FY 1979-80 after passage of Prop 13
reduced the District’s “5 cent” property tax revenues by 58%
•SWP tax is collected county-wide
•SCVWD relies on the tax to pay for 100% of State Water Project
contractual obligations
•SWP Tax can only be used to pay for State Water Project contractual
obligations
•SWP tax accounts for 10% of Water Utility revenue for FY 15
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 14 of 26
Breakdown of FY 15 WU Revenue Budget
•FY 15 budgeted Water Utility revenue plus Open Space Credit transfer = $203M
•10% or $21M of Water Utility Revenue comes from the SWP tax
$81.0M, 40%
Groundwater
$88.1M, 43%
Treated Water
$1.6M, 1%
$4.7M, 2%
$21.0M, 10%
$0.5M, 0%
$4.2M, 2%
$1.9M, 1%
SCVWD Water Utility
Revenue Sources FY 15
Groundwater
Production Charges
Treated Water Charges
Surface/Recycled
Water Charges
1% Ad Valorem
Property Taxes
State Water Project
Tax
Interest Earnings
Reimbursements &
Other
OSC Transfer
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 15 of 26
Pre 1961 – Several cities contract with SFPUC for Hetch-Hetchy (HH) water supply
July 1961 – 5-cent county-wide tax established to start water importation program
Nov. 1961 – SCVWD contracts with DWR for State Water Project (SWP) water
March 1963 – Board establishes policy for in-county credit to agencies that receive HH water
June 1963 – Residents in Zone W-1 approve $42M bond for in-county distribution & treatment
facilities to optimally use SWP imported water. Paid for by W-1 debt service tax.
July 1964 – Groundwater production charges are established
June 1978 – Proposition 13 passes. District no longer receives ad valorem taxes as established, but
instead receives a portion of the 1% ad valorem tax (~60% reduction).
July 1979 – The SWP override tax is first levied to pay for SWP contract obligations
June 1981 – Board adopts resolution 81-44 declaring that in-county credit is no longer justified
June 1984 – In-county credit is phased out
July 2000 – A portion of Water Utility ad valorem taxes are reprogrammed to Watersheds
History
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 16 of 26
SWP Tax in South County
•SWP tax collected county-wide beginning July 1979
•South County Zone W-5 formed in 1987 with Gavilan Water District
merger
•Since 1987, SWP tax collected in South County has been “credited”
against water charges
•South County Zone W-5 does not directly receive SWP water
•SWP cost allocated 100% to North County, 0% to South County
•SWP revenue collected 94% in North County, 6% in South County
•South County receives “credit” from North County for 6% of tax collected
in South County
•SWP tax fund accounts for 100% of SWP Tax revenues and costs
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 17 of 26
State Water Project Tax for FY 2015
•Board adopted same SWP tax collection ($21M) for FY 2015 as for FY 2014
•The SWP tax bill for the average single family residence will remain the
same at roughly $36.00/year
•Assumes $535K average assessed value
If FY 15 SWP tax were not
approved, another funding
source would be needed,
impact equates to:
•$100/AF in terms of North
County M&I groundwater
production charge
•$25/AF in terms of South
County M&I groundwater
production charge
•$575,000 in terms of Open
space credit
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 18 of 26
High Deliveries, 90% Participation, 50/50 SWP/CVP Cost Split Scenario
$K North South
CVP SWP Total Cost/mo*Cost/mo*
FY 15 307 120 427 $0.05 $0.03
FY 16 312 122 434 $0.05 $0.03
FY 17 400 157 557 $0.09 $0.03
FY 18 14,536 5,816 20,352 $2.94 $1.38
FY 19 14,631 5,853 20,484 $2.94 $1.38
FY 20 14,636 5,855 20,491 $2.94 $1.38
FY 21 24,917 9,970 34,887 $5.05 $2.38
FY 22 24,922 9,972 34,894 $5.05 $2.38
FY 23 34,243 13,703 47,946 $6.93 $3.27
FY 24 34,248 13,705 47,953 $6.93 $3.27
10 Yr Subtotal 163,152 65,273 228,425
* Cost per month for average household including CVP and SWP impacts
BDCP Costs Projection and SWP Tax
•Analysis assumes costs associated with conveyance of State Water Project supply would be
paid for by SWP tax
•SWP tax for average single family residence would increase from $36/yr to $60/yr by FY 24
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 19 of 26
Do other SWP contractors rely on SWP tax?
100% reliance on SWP tax
•SCVWD
•Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency
•Coachella Valley Water District
•San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District
•Castaic Lake Water Agency
Less than 100% reliance on SWP tax
•Metropolitan Water District (8-10%)
•Kern County Water Agency (10-14%)
•Mojave Water Agency (84%)
•Zone 7 (50%)
No reliance on SWP tax
•Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Current practice = variable
SWP costs paid by rates,
fixed SWP costs paid by SWP
tax
Based on legislative cap
Remainder of SWP costs billed
directly to member units
Attachment 2
Page 20 of 26
Topics
1.Pricing Policy Review
•District Act
•Board Policies
•Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy
2.State Water Project Tax
•Background
•History
•SWP Tax for FY 15 and Beyond
3.SFPUC Water Management Review
•Water Management Options
4.Board Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 21 of 26
SFPUC Water Supply in Santa Clara County
•About 15 percent of countywide supply
•Eight retailers along San Francisco Bay receive some or
all of their supply through contracts with SFPUC
•Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara have interruptible
contracts
•SFPUC scheduled to make decisions about long-term
supply availability in 2018
•Milpitas Intertie improves reliability for SFPUC, District,
and customers
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 22 of 26
SFPUC Contract Amounts and Demands1
Customer Individual
Supply
Guarantee
(AFY)
Minimum
Purchase
Required
(AFY)
2014 Usage
(Jan –Sept)
(AF)
2035
Demand
2035
Excess or
(Shortage)
Milpitas 10,338 5,982 4,795 9,856 482
Mountain
View
15,075 10,002 7,086 12,645 2,430
Palo Alto 19,118 None 9,431 15,086 4,032
Purissima
Hills
1,814 None 1,497 2,060 (246)
San Jose None None 3,982 5,040 (5,040)
Santa Clara None None 1,543 5,040 (5,040)
Stanford 3,394 None 1,607 3,447 (53)
Sunnyvale 14,090 10,002 6,352 10,002 4,088
Totals 63,829 25,985 36,293 63,176 653
1 From BAWSCA Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy, Phase IIA Final Report,
Volume II (July 2012), and SFPUC Purchase Data
Attachment 2
Page 23 of 26
Water Management Goals
•SCVWD Goals
•Long-term average
deliveries of 62,000
AFY
•San Jose and Santa
Clara become
permanent SFPUC
customers
•Increase water
recycling and
conservation
•SFPUC Goals1
•Meet long-term
demands
•Make San Jose and
Santa Clara
permanent customers
•Improve drought
supply reliability
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
1SFPUC Staff Memo regarding Draft Outline of Water Supply Strategy
presented to the SFPUC on October 8, 2013
Attachment 2
Page 24 of 26
Water Management Options
Option Discussion
Operations
Agreement
SCVWD would enter into an agreement with
SFPUC and it customers in Santa Clara County
to be the operating entity for SFPUC supplies
Joint development of
new supplies
SCVWD and SFPUC would partner on the
development of new supplies, such as potable
reuse, to support making SJ/SC permanent
customers and improving drought reliability
Incentives to common
customers
Incentives could encourage use of SFPUC
supplies in Santa Clara County
West Side Intertie Intertie would provide redundancy, improve
system reliability, and access to treated water
Water transfers and/or
banking agreements
SCVWD and SFPUC could partner on water
transfers and/or banking agreement for long-
term and/or drought needs
Combination Combination of two or more options
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 25 of 26
Water Management Strategy Needs
•Secures long-term average SFPUC supplies of
62,000 AFY
•Secures San Jose and Santa Clara supplies
•Provides for individual customer demands
•Improves drought reliability
•Meets common customer interests
•Coordinated with SFPUC and BAWSCA
•Is cost-effective
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
Attachment 2
Page 26 of 26
Policy Questions for the Board
•Should District continue to rely on SWP tax to pay 100% of SWP
contractual obligations?
•Should District continue current practices regarding accounting for
State Water Project related revenues and costs in South County?
•Should District consider development of an overall water
management policy that includes the maximization of imported
Hetch Hetchy water for the benefit of the County?
•Are changes warranted to the Taxing and Pricing Policy or Board
Governance Policies?
Pricing Policy SWP Tax SFPUC Water Management Policy Questions
RESOLlITION NO. 99-21
ADOPTING "WATER UilLITY TAXING AND PRICING POLICY" AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-82
WHEREAS, the Santa C lara Val ley Water District (District) adopted a District mission, goals and
objectives on February 19, 1985, in order to conduct a sound water management program that serves th e
community; and
WHEREAS, the District Act authorizes the District to enter in to water sales contracts and to levy and
collect truces and assessments on property within the District and in the respective zones of the District and
sets forth requirements for groundwater charges and rates between agricultural and nonagricultural water;
and
WHEREAS, several Board resolutions, as identified in Exhibit "A," are related to the management of
water resources and the imp lementation of this water taxing and pricing policy; and
WHEREAS, several changes which affect revenue sources and benefit distribution have occurred since
adoption of Resolution No. 96-82. These changes include: (1) passage of Resol ution Nos . 98-44 and
98-45 setting agric ul tural ch arges for groundwater and surface water at I 0 percent of the nonagricultural
charges; (2) revisions to the policy governing sale of noncontract water in 1998; (3) pending completion
of an agreement to act as the wholesaler to deliver recycled water in South County.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the District as follows:
1. The policy of the District in the areas of taxation and water pricing for water utility revenues
shall be and is hereby adopted :
Policy Statement
The intent of this water utility taxing and pricing policy is to provide revenue for the management
of water resou rces and operation of the water utility enterprise. This policy estab lishes a framework
for establishing a system of water charges as pennitted by the District Act to meet revenue
requirements and to allocate costs amongst the beneficiaries. The general approach is to charge the
recipients of the various benefits for the benefits received from the District's comprehensive water
uti lity program.
The consumptive and nonconsumptive benefits provided by D istrict water supp ly facilities and
operations are listed and described below:
• Provision of a water supply and effective management of water resources avai lable to the
community from a variety of sources of supply, transmission, and water treatment facilities
operated by the District.
• Protection of water quality through the purification and treatment of water and the protection
of water supplies.
• Stewardship of watersheds and riparian corridor.
• Administration of related programs and projects such as recycled water and water
conservation administered solely by the District or in partnership with another organization .
RLI0455 B-6 Attachment 3
Page 1 of 4
Page 2
Res. 99-21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy" and Res~inding Resolution No. 96-82
• Ancillary flood protection.
• Recreation, such as fishing, boating, picnicking, hiking, and other related recreation activities.
• Support for the economic well being of the community .
• Protection of the community infrastructure from subsidence.
2. Policy Implementation
The following water trucing and pricing concepts and framework shall be implemented in order to
provide for revenue in order to continue providing direct and ancillary benefits to the customers of
the District and the community of Santa Clara County.
Water Taxing and Pricing Concepts
• Water Pooling: Water is considered to be a single commodity irrespective of the water's
source or cost. It is a single commodity whether it is from water provided locally, imported,
or recycled, and all users benefit from the availability of multiple sources of water.
• Water Facilities Cost Pooling : AJI water supply facilities contribute to the common benefit
of effective water resources management. In general, the water charges and property taxes
are based on the common benefits of the capital and operations outlays, rather than reference
to named facilities, with the exception of the liability for bonded indebtedness which is
applied to each zone of benefit.
• Water Resources Manageme11t: Water supplies are managed, through taxing and pricing,
to obtain the effective utilization of the water resources of the District to the advantage of the
present and future populations of the County. This concept provides for development of
taxing and pricing structures that will achieve the effective use of available resources and
conserve supplies for potential drought conditions.
• Revenue Pooling-. For the most part, water utility revenues are collected in a common fund
and not designated for a specific cost. Such revenues are availab le for the general capital and
operating outlays of the water utility enterprise. Some revenues such as certain property taxes
are specifically designated for debt service and the fixed costs of the State Water Project, and
are not available to the common fund . Water charges are established to provide the revenues
that are required in the common fund for general capital and operating outlays and that are
over and above revenues from ad valorem taxes, interes t, and mi scellaneous sources. This
provides flexibility in managing continuing operations and funding capital outlays.
Water Taxing and Pricing Framework
The following procedures are intended as a general framework to guide staff in the development of
a water rate structure implementing this policy :
• Zones of Benejit-. Zones of benefit are to be identified and established in accordance with
the District Act Groundwater charges and property taxes are levied for the benefits received
by the water users and property owners benefitting from that zone. For each zone, a basic
RLI0455 B-7 Attachm ent 3
Page 2 of 4
Pa ge 3
Res . No . 99 -21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Trucing and Pricing Policy" and Rescinding Resolution No. 96-82
water user charge is determined for current groundwater and raw surface water users to be
applied to the quantities of water used or consumed.
• Basic WaJer Charge Zones : The objective of estab lishing various water charge zones is to
recover costs for the benefits resulting from conservation, import, and recharge of water
which occur only within that zone. Water charges are levied for water producing operations,
such as groundwater pumping and raw surface water diversion. In addition , users may be
subject to specific charges that meet special needs of a group of users, such as water master
charges for surface water deliveries, a capital charge for equipment or faci lities, and power
costs for pumping.
• TreaJed WaJer Surcharge: A treated water surcharge shall be added to the basic water
charge for the price of treated surface water delivered by the District. The charge is to be
established at an amount that would promote the effective use of available water resources.
The charge may differ between treatment plants to better manage regional variations in
groundwater conditions.
• Costs for Specific Benefits: Whenever costs associated with specific benefits are clearly and
easily measurable, those costs shall be charged to the beneficiaries, in accordance with their
specific zones of benefit. Where there is a question as to the identity of the beneficiary or the
method of measuring the benefit, the allocation of costs should remain flexible and be
detennined in accordance with accepted practice s and sound judgements based on the four
water pricing concepts. The District recognizes and supports the State Legislature 's
limitation imposed on the Dis trict that rates for agricultural wate r s hall not exceed one-fourth
of the rate for all water other than agricu ltural water. In order to encourage the continuance
of agricultural use ofland in the County, to encourage the preservation of open space, to defer
intensification of users and to furth e r support the limitation impo s ed by the State Legislature,
it is the District's policy that rates for agricultural water shall not exceed one-tenth the rate
for all water other than agricultural water.
Both water charges and property truces are used to recover costs incurred for the benefit of
current water users . The cost s for future supply sources can be recovered using current
revenues or through project specific long-tenn financing.
• Balancing Costs : The District recognizes that there may be imbalances between revenues
and costs within a zone of benefit from year to year. The District will strive to achieve
balance over the long-term in accordance with the District Act and to properly charge
recipients for the benefits recei ved.
• Incentives : Incentives in the form of subsidies may be provided in order to reduce the price
of specific sources of water in order to optimize use of available or future water resources .
• Recycled WaJ er: Fro m time to time , the Di s tri ct may enter into agree ments to provide
wholesale delivery or other s e rvices related to recycled water. The Di s trict will strive to
recover the costs of these facilities consistent with the pooling concepts outlined above, whil e
adhering to the specifics of any agreement.
RL1 0455 B-8 Attachment 3
Pa ge 3 of 4
Page 4
Res. No. 99-21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy" and Rescinding Resolution No . 96-82
3. Executive and Staff Limitations
District staff are authori zed to develop a water rate structure which meets the objectives set fonh
herein, in accordance with the District Act, and using the co ncepts set forth above . The District's
rate structure is implemented only by resolutions approved by the Board of Directors.
Staff is authorized to recommend water charges for consideratio n by the Board in accordance wi th
the District Act. Water charges, if any, shall be recommended by staff eac h year be at fixed and
uniform rates for agricultural water and for all water other than agricultural water, respectively,
except that each such rate for agricultural water shall be one-tenth of the rate for all wate r other than
agricultural water. The Board has determined that agricultural use oflands is of value to the County
and the state, and that agricultural lands provide an open space benefit. The Board's limiting staff
to a recommendation of agricultural water rates below the maximum allowed by the District Act will
benefit water users Countywide, and is necessary to cany out the policies of the State Legislature
and the District Board of Directors.
Staff is authorized to prepare, for the Board's consideration , resolutions for the collection of property
taxes as needed and authorized under applicable laws .
4. Previous Policy Rescinded
The "Water Taxing and Pricing Policy," adopted by Resolution No . 96 -82, is hereby rescinded .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District on
March 16, 1999 by the following vote :
AYES : Directors Gross, Z lotnick, Judge, Kamei , Sanchez, Estremera , Wilson
NOES: Directors None
ABSENT: Directors None
ATTEST: LAUREN L. KELLER
~~
RLl 04 55
SANT A CLARA Y ALLEY WATER DISTRICT
B-9
Attachment 3
Page 4 of 4
Attachment 4
Page 1 of 2
Attachment 4
Page 2 of 2
PALO
ALTO
01r1cr or 1HL C I TY M A NAGER
250 H,1milton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo A l to. CA 94301
650 .329.2392
November 14, 2014
Tony Estremera, Director District 6, Board Chair
Brian Schmidt, Director District 7, Vice Chair
Dennis Kennedy, Director District 1
Barbara Keegan, Director District 2
Richard Santos, Director District 3
Linda LeZotte, Director District 4
Nai Hsueh, Director District 5
SCVWD Board of Directors
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear SCVWD Board Members:
Handout 4.2-a
11/18/14
On behalf of the City Council, I am pleased to see that the District discussed the State Water
Project (SWP) tax allocation at your July 8, 2014 Board meeting and will do so again on November
18. The District's allocation of 100% of its SWP costs to property taxpayers instead of water
ratepayers is of particular concern to the City of Palo Alto . This is of course because City
residents receive no SWP water, yet Palo Alto taxpayers contribute approximately $1.5 million
annually toward the District's SWP costs, and have contributed $19-$25 million over the last 30
years . The City raised this issue with the District over 4 years ago, but the District has continued
to collect 100% of its SWP costs from taxpayers, while allocating none of SWP costs to ratepayers .
We thank you for discussing the issue and encourage the Board to take this opportunity to make
a meaningful and equitable change to the District's current practice. At this point, it is important
to build upon and correct a few statements made at the July 8, 2014 meeting and in the
accompanying staff memorandums for the July 8 and November 18 meetings:
1. District staff statement that all County residents, even those who receive no SWP water,
benefit from the District's participation in the SWP is incomplete and potentially
misleading.
l t ~ 1.) • P .:"'! i o A I to o r 9
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 2
First, the statement ignores the key benefit and primary purpose of the SWP: the
provision of water. The District's Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy requires the
District to "charge recipients for benefits received ." Palo Alto receives zero SWP water.
This should be the starting place for any discussion of cost allocation for the SWP .
Second, as to any potential secondary benefits, such as avoiding subsidence and saltwater
intrusion and general economic development, the District ignores similar and offsetting
benefits that other users receive as a result of the City's use of 100% Hetch Hetchy water
and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) intertie connecting the two
systems.
Palo Alto agrees that having multiple water supply sources in the County provides the
District with the flexibility to effectively manage water resources. But Palo Alto's total
reliance on its SFPUC supply provides comparable, if not superior, benefits to the District
and other users: it relieves the District of the obligation to build facilities to manage water
supply in Palo Alto, and it allows the District to reallocate SWP water elsewhere in the
County, reducing the risk of subsidence and saltwater intrusion, recharging groundwater,
and contributing to economic growth.
2. Contrary to statements made by the District's General Counsel at the July 8, 2014 meeting
and a memorandum prepared for the November 18th meeting, the District is not "required
to tax" to pay its SWP costs . The District has the authority to fund its SWP costs in a
variety of ways, inc luding through rates charged to water users. In fact, according to the
District's contract with the State Department of Water Resources, the Water Code, and
the Burns-Porter Act, property taxes are intended to be a secondary collection method
that provides assurance to bond holders that debts will be paid in years when other
funding sources are insufficient to meet SWP costs .
3. Staff's July 8th and November 181
h presentations provide helpful information about how
some other state water contractors recover their SWP costs. The District is one of 27
SWP customers; several collect their SWP costs entirely or primarily from retail water
sales, not taxes. In fact, the two agencies that take approximately 70% of all SWP water -
Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and Kern County Water Agency -collect only 8-14% of
their SWP costs through taxes , and the rest through water rates. The Alameda County
Water District relies on taxes to pay for 50% of its SWP obligation.
The Metropolitan Water District's SWP cost allocation practice is illustrative. MWD
collects only 8-10% of its SWP obligation from taxpayers. At the July 8 1r. Board meeting,
the District's outside counsel noted that this was due to legislation directing MWD to cap
the taxpayer contribution . While that is true, the legislation was largely an outcome of a
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 3
lawsuit the City of Los Angeles filed against MWD in 1975. Los Angeles argued that
because it received little SWP water, MWD's practice of collecting the majority of its SWP
costs from Los Angeles taxpayers violated the law. The parties settled the suit in 1980,
when MWD adopted a "proportionate use" cost sharing formula, under which water sales
revenues paid operating expenses and an increasing share of MWD's capital costs.
Taxpayers' share of MWD's SWP costs decreased as water sales increased.
4. At the July 8th Board meeting, several Board members discussed what voters intended
when they approved the Burns-Porter Act in 1960, authorizing the issuance of state bonds
to finance construction of the SWP . The Burns-Porter Act ballot materials informed voters
that the SWP would not burden taxpayers . Voters were told that the system would pay for
itself through the sale of SWP water and power. Contrary to statements made at the
District's July 8th meeting, voters did not expect to be taxed even if they received no SWP
water.
5. The District's funding practices demonstrate awareness that it is inappropriate to charge
taxpayers for a water system they do not use. Until 1984, the Hetch Hetchy water users
(Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Purissima Hills, San Jose Municipal Water Company,
Santa Clara, Stanford University, and Sunnyvale) received an "in-county credit" in
recognition of the fact that they used little or no SWP water. While the District ended the
credit in 1984, it continues to credit South County taxpayers, who also receive no SWP
water, for the 6% of the District's SWP costs they contribute via property taxes .
6. During the July 8 1r. Board meeting, the City's water conservation programs were
mentioned. It is true that the City and the District have a longstanding partnership
administering a variety of water conservation rebates and programs. In fact, the City has
a Memorandum of Understanding with the District, in effect since at least 2002, under
which both parties fund and administer ten different water conservation programs for
City water customers. Program costs are shared equitably; the District does not cover
100% of these costs.
The City of Palo Alto greatly values its relationship with the District, and appreciates the District's
partnership on water-related issues like flood protection and conservation. The City wants that
to continue. At the same time, the Dis t rict should correct its practice of relying on property
taxpayers to meet 100% of its SWP obligations . This is particularly important during a tim e when
Di strict staff is forecasting si gnificant increases to SWP costs, ev en before the stat e emba rks on
an ambitious plan to build water conveyance tunnels through the Delta that could increase the
current tax collection even further. Doing this would be fair to County taxpayers who receive no
SWP water, and consistent with state law and promises made to voters when the SWP was
approved.
SCVWD Board
November 14, 2014
Page 4
Once again, on behalf of the City, we thank you for discussing the issue, and look forward to
continued dialogue and to crafting a mutually beneficial solution. Please have Beau Goldie
contact me or my staff if we may assist in any way.
Sincerely,
cc: Mayor and City Council
Beau Goldie, CEO, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Stan Yamamoto, District's General Counsel
Molly Stump, City Attorney
Val Fong, Director Utilities
Purissima Hills
Water District
November 18, 2014
Tony Estremera, Director District 6,SCVWD Board Chair
Brian Schmidt, Director District 7, Vice Chair
Dennis Kennedy, Director District 1
Barbara Keegan, Director District 2
Richard Santos, Director District 3
Linda leZotte, Director District 4
Nai Hsueh, Director District 5
SCVWD Board of Directors
5750 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
Dear SCVWD Board Members:
26375 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Tel (650) 948-1217
Fax (650) 948-0961
t\Cff\dout-t~Z-b
This letter is in response to some misconceptions that are created in Mr. Fiedler's July 28, 2014 memo to the
Santa Clara Water District Board of Directors. The memo lists a number of benefits from the State Water
Project (SWP) that SCVWD claims are received by Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) to justify the property
tax that our constituents pay. It appears Mr. Fiedler made these claims without consulting with PHWD in
advance, as there are some factual errors. We would like to build a good working relationship with SCVWD, so
would like to correct these.
The letter stated "PHWD receives the benefit of the availability of an emergency water supply source as a
result of SWP water availability. PHWD has one monitoring well and possibly other active wells." In fact,
PHWD did ask SCVWD for emergency water supply, and SCVWD specifically refused our request in a phone
conversation between Mr. Fiedler and the PHWD General Manager in January, 2009. At the time SCVWD
claimed (1) it did not have sufficient water, and (2) it did not have sufficient treatment or pipeline capacity to
serve PHWD customers. Therefore the statement "PHWD receives the benefit ... of emergency water supply''
does not appear to be accurate. PHWD has not, does not, and according to Mr. Fiedler will not receive SWP
water.
Regarding the second point, PHWD in fact drilled two test wells in 2002 in a quest for additional water supply.
The locations were determined to have the best opportunity within our district for productivity based on a
report prepared by a hydro-geologist contracted by PHWD. After sampling the test wells, we discovered that
the water quality and quantity was so poor that the expense of developing production wells could not be
justified. As a result, we never produced water from the wells, and in 2011, the wells were subsequently
abandoned to CDPH and SCVWD standards and inspected by SCVWD. Therefore, SCVWD knew or should have
known that PHWD had neither a monitoring well nor an active well by virtue of its inspection and by
Setvice To The Hills Since 1955 REFER TO STAFF
NOV 18 2014
November 18, 201'1
examination of your own records. We certainly could have reminded SCVWD of this had the research for its
analysis included asking us.
The letter also said "Both City of Palo Alto and PHWD benefit from the SCVWD/SFPUC intertie. The intertie
allows SFPUC customers in northern Santa Clara County to receive and benefit from treated water (SWP water)
from the District just as the intertie allows the District access to SFPUC water." This statement is misleading
based on SCVWD published documents. It is our understanding that this intertie was constructed and is
maintained equally by the SFPUC and SCVWD. In other words, as a customer of SFPUC, PHWD pays its pro-rata
portion of SFPUC's construction cost, annual maintenance cost, and the cost of the SF PUC water supplied. We
understand from SCVWD published documents that "The lntertie pump station has allowed both agencies to
maintain treated water to its customers while preventive or corrective maintenance has been performed on
treated water pipelines or treatment plants." Since SCVWD and SFPUC share the expense of operating the
intertie, PHWD is in fact already paying for its share of the cost of the intertie. Further, SCVWD cannot claim
that the existence of the intertie justifies passing the SWP tax on to districts that do not use any SWP water.
Since we understand that SFPUC and SCVWD balance the water exchange between the two agencies through
the intertie according to section 16 of the intertie operating agreement, there is no reason to charge the retail
agencies for the cost of supply. Further, SCVWD and SFPUC have worked out in section 17 how to compensate
each other for water supply in the case that water is not paid back; this means that SCVWD's practice of taxing
PHWD constituents for the cost of supply would represent a double benefit for SCVWD. As you know, SCVWD,
and the retail agencies which rely only on SCVWD supply, do not pay for the cost of SFPUC supply.
Finally, SCVWD has already established a precedent on this topic: agencies which do not receive the SWP
water should be refunded the SWP tax collected from those agency's constituents. Stated in Mr. Fiedler's July
8, 2014 board agenda memo, SCVWD's policy is "to include a credit for the State Water Project tax collected in
the South County because the South County Zone W-5 does not receive State Water Project imported water."
Logically the same policy should be applied to PHWD, Palo Alto, Stanford, and others who do not receive the
SWP imported water.
In summary, it appears that SCVWD claims of benefits provided to PHWD are simply not correct, and are
supported only by a fabricated argument made solely to justify levying a tax on our constituents. We note that
the largest users of SWP water in fact rely primarily on rates rather than taxes to pay for the cost of SWP
supply, and that the examples chosen by SCVWD to support a 100% reliance on tax appear to have been
selected to deceive the SCVWD board into thinking that its 100% reliance on tax is somehow the norm. Our
request is that SCVWD eliminate the SWP tax on our constituents, or in the alternative credit to PHWD 100% of
the SWP tax levied on our constituents, much as SCVWD credits the SWP tax levied on the South County
constituents. We would be happy to work with SCVWD on alternatives for it to come clean on deceptive
tamx~ation pra ~tic~es.
Si r 1 w \
P k Walter, ener · Manager
Purissima Hills Water District
cc: Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors
ATTACHMENT 7
Santa Clara Valley
WaterDisbid A -
Fc 1025 (09-20-13) u
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item:
Unclassified Manager:
Extension:
Director(s):
BOARD AGENDA MEMO
1/13/15
4.2
J. Fiedler
2736
All
SUBJECT: Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Groundwater Production Charges Analysis
RECOMMENDATION;
Discuss and provide direction on the preliminary FY 2015-16 Groundwater Production Charge
analysis prepared by staff.
SUMMARY:
Staff has prepared the preliminary FY 2015-16 groundwater production charge analysis for
Board review. The analysis includes a range of water use projections, a summary of drought
response costs , a discussion of changes to the capital cost projection , and anti cipated future
Bay Delta Conservation Plan costs . Staff has developed three prelim inary FY 16 groundwater
production charge scenarios , which are all higher than the prior year projection due primarily to
responding to the drought. The scenarios vary depending on the severity of the drought and
District response in the coming year. At this time, staff is leaning toward recommending a more
optimistic scenario , which would include considering the possibility of a mid-year rate
adjustment if the drought impacts worsen during the year. Staff has identified the "Drought
Component" of the groundwater production charge scenarios per direction received at the
December 9 , 2014 Board meeting . Staff is seeking Board input to incorporate into the
development of the groundwater production charge recommendation on the following topics :
• The preliminary groundwater production charge scenarios
• Use of the State Water Project Tax
• Use of the Open Space Credit
• The concept of a "Drought Reserve"
• Any other feedback from the Board
The groundwater production charge recommendation will be detailed in the Annual Report on
the Protection and Augmentation of Water Supplies that is planned to be filed with the Clerk of
the Board on February 27, 2015. The public hearing on groundwater production charges is
scheduled to open on April 14 , 2015. It is anticipated that the Board would set the FY 2015-16
groundwater production charges by May 12, 2015, that would become effective on July 1, 2015.
The District protects and augments water supplies for the health, welfare and safety of the
community. County-wide , groundwater replenished by the District makes up, on average, two-
thirds of the groundwater used by residents , retailers and businesses. The District replenishes
the groundwater basins with local water and purchased water imported from the Sierra Nevada
Page 1 of 4
SUBJECT: Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Groundwater Production Charges
Analysis
(01 /13/15)
mountains. The activities undertaken by the District to acquire , monitor, recharge , and protect
the water supply in support of the Silicon Valley economy are funded , in part, through
groundwater production charges .
The FY 2015-16 groundwater production charge and surface water charge setting process will
be conducted consistent with the District Act , Proposition 218's requirements for property-
related fees for water services (although the applicability of those requirements is an issue now
pending in the courts), and Board resolutions 99-21, 12-10, and 12-11 . See attachments 2-4.
Water Use Assumptions
FY 2014-15 year-to-date water usage is about 14% lower than the same month of the prior year
for county-wide water use and about 10.5 % lower for District-managed water use (District-
managed water use excludes Hetch Hetchy, and San Jose Water Company owned water
supplies). For purposes of the preliminary analysis , staff has prepared three water usage
scenarios for FY 2015-16 based on projected water usage. The first , more optimistic scenario
assumes District-managed water use of 250 ,000 A F which represents a 12 .6% reduction versus
calendar year 2013. The second scenario assumes 245,000 AF or a 14.3% reduction , and the
wo rst case scenario assumes 230 ,000 AF or 19.5 % reduction versus calendar year 2013. Staff
will work closely with the water retailers in the next couple of months to further assess the water
usage forecast and modify if necessary.
Groundwater Production C harge Projections
Staff has prepared three preliminary groundwater production charge projections for Board
review. The first (Option 1) is based on a 12.6% water use reduction versus calendar year 2013 ,
and reflects a 17 .8 % increase in the North County M&I groundwater production charge and
9.1 % in the South County for FY 2015-16. This projection is higher than prior year primarily due
to increased drought-related operations costs (e.g., $13M for incremental purchases of imported
water, $5M for a Semitropic water bank ta ke, and $5M for enhanced conservation programs)
and a lower water usage assumption (e.g., 250 ,000 AF assumed for FY 2015-16 versus
260 ,000 AF assumed in the prior year projection ), which translates to lower revenue. The
drought driven component of the increase under this scenario is 7 .0 % of the 17.8 % for North
County, and 4 .7 % of the 9.1 % for South County.
The draft FY 16-20 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is higher than the prior year CIP due to:
• The addition of the Vasona Pumping Plant Upgrades project ($21. 7M) to replace pumps
that are in poor condition,
• A $37 .3M projected cost increase to the Rinconada Water Treatment Plant Re l iability
Upgrade due to scope refinements,
• A $24.5M projected cost increase to the Almaden Dam Seismic Retrofit project to raise
the dam crest, lengthen the spillway, and perform an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR).
These GIP increases impact the North County Zone W-2 only and drive 1.0% of the 17.8%
increase under this scenario . The overall impact of this scenario to the average household
would be an increase of $4.58 per month in North County and $1 .00 per month in South
County.
The second scenario (Option 2) is based on a 14.3% water use reduction versus calendar year
2013 (e.g ., 245 ,000 AF water usage) and reflects a 26 .5 % increase in the North County M&I
groundwater production charge and 11 .0% for South County . This scenario includes the $23M
Page 2 of 4
SUBJECT: Preliminary Fis c al Year (FY) 2015-16 Groundwater Production Charges
Analysis
(01 /1 3/15)
of drought related operations costs under Option 1 plus an additional $9M for imported water
purchases . The ove rall impact of thi s scenario to the average household would be an increase
of $6.81 per month in North County and $1.20 per month in South County.
The third scenario is based on a 19.5% water use reduction versus calendar year 2013 (e .g.,
230,000 AF water usage) and reflects a 37 .2% increase in the North County M&I groundwater
production charge and 12.5% for South County. This scenario include s the $32M of drought
related operations costs under Options 1 & 2 plus an additional $7M for th e reverse flow project.
The overall impact of this scenario to the average household would be an increase of $9 .57 per
month i n North County and $1.38 per month in South County .
The prior year projection reflected a 9.8 % increase in the North County M&I groundwater
production charge , 4.4 % for South County M&I, and 4.4% for the agricultural groundwater
production charge for FY 2015-16 . Staff anticipate no changes to the contract treated water
surcharge and the non-contract treated water surcharge for FY 2015-16 .
Other Assumptions
The preliminary analysis assumes the continued practice of relying on the State Water Project
(SWP) Tax to pay for 100 % of the State Water Project contra ctual obligations. Pursuant to
Water Code Section 11652, the District, whenever necessary, is required to levy on all property
in its jurisdiction not ·exempt from taxation , a tax sufficient to provide for all payments under its
._SWP contract with the California Department of Water Resources {DWR). The District is
anticipating a $7M increase in SWP costs for FY 2015-16 driven by corrections to past DWR
under-collection s, and increased costs due to South Bay Aqueduct (SBA) reliability projects.
Accordingly, the SWP tax for the average household would increase by roughly $9 per year
(from $36 per year to $45 per year), if discretionary funds a re not available and allocated to fund
SWP contract costs. Note that this anticipated in c rease is not related to the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan (BDCP). The preliminary analysis also assumes the continued practice to set
the South County agricu ltural groundwater production charge at 6% of the non-ag ricultural
charge . The preliminary groundwater production charge scenarios do not in clude unfunded
capital projects , additional operations cost needs identified by staff, or additional costs
associated with the potent ial acceleration of recy cled water expansion .
Efforts to Minimize Rate impacts
To minimize the FY 16 rate increase, the capital cost projections (and associated project
schedules) have been shifted out and extended by one year for the Anderson , Calero and
Guadalupe Dam Seismic Retrofit projects . In addition , the cost projection for the Rinconada
Wate r Treatment Plant Reliabil ity Improvement project has been shifted out over the 5 year
construction period without impacting schedule . Staff will continue to look for both capital and
operations cost reductions as the rate setting process continues over the next few months. Cost
reduction opportunities are more difficult to come by given the cost saving achievements over
the past few years , including the elimination of 122 positions District-wide since 2008 .
Drought Reserve Concept
An idea that is not included in the preliminary analysis, but that is being considered by staff is
the establishment of a new Drought Reserve . This reserve would be set aside specifically for
use during drought emergencies and would complement the Supplemental Water Supply
Reserve (which can be utilized at any time). The purpose of this reserve would be to help
minimize rate impacts and f luctuation during the next drought. While it would be difficult to justify
a higher increase for FY 2015-16 to establish this reserve , one approach might be to utilize
Page 3of4
SUBJECT: Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-16 Groundwater Production Charges
Analysis
(01/13/15)
unspent FY 2015-16 drought response cost budget, if applicable, to seed this reserve for FY
2016-17 . Staff could put additional thought to this concept upon Board direction .
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This preliminary analysis of the groundwater production charges does not have any direct
financial impact, however, the adopted groundwater production charges will affect the future
finances of the Water Utility Enterprise.
CEQA:
CEQA Guidelines Section 15273: CEQA does not apply to establishment or modification of
water rates.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1, Power Point presentation
Attachment 2 , District Resolution 99-21 (Pricing Poli cy)
Attachment 3, District Resolution 12-10
Attachment 4 , District Resolution 12-11
Page 4of4
r ·· -. .. ~--
Presentation Outline
l. Water Use
2. Fi nancial Analysis
Jio. Prior Year Groundwater Production Charge Projection
II> Current Cost Projection
llo-Preliminary Groundwater Prododion Charge Projection
~ FY 16 Analysis and Ass.umptions
3. Schedule
4. Discossion/Wrap up
Page2 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 1of14
.---~ ----~ -~ ----
District Managed Water Usage
100
50
a
Non<on111et.TW
-.rt"hspj$/Af)
•Actuals • FY 14 Estimate Ill Projection
$50 $60 $100 $100 $1SO
PQge 3 of 27
' --
Water Usage Scenarios by Zone
North County Water Usage
Water Usa ge scenarios relative
to Cal e ndar Year 2013
~rf~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"""',n~~~;:-...
~~:k 19<>
180
170 -
~= ---.,. --~I
<t-"" <!<<§> ,...., "''<§> <t-"'' <t-.... "' ~., ... ~>Y;!J<t-¢, <t<"~ <!<"' <t-""' <t-... ' <t-""'
South County M&I Water Usage
:i;~_--
~=~ ----
,.L --24 1· -~~..'!
ZQ _____..., ___,.... i 1 1 9 ')%$Cen-.,;""I
<t-"" <t-""' <t-"'' ,.._<§> <t-"' <t-~ ,.._v-<t-"@<t--> <t-""' ~:~ "' ..... ?-~ <t-"'"' Page 4 of27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 2of14
r__,,..........-~ -~ -~ --• ~ ---
; Breakdown of FY 15 Water Utility Revenue Budget
SCVWD Water Utilify
Revenue Sources FY 1·5
($Millions)
cGroundwater Production Charges
•TrealedWaterCharges
O Surf acelRecycled Water Charges
Surface/Rec)'Cled Water o 1%Ad Valorem Property Taxes
Cbarges, $2, 1%
1%.l!:il Va!Orem Property •State Water Project Tax
Taxe&, $5, 2%
c Interest Earnings
o Reimbursements & other
o DSC Transfer
Interest Eamln:gs, $1 , 0%
lntburse.me nts & Othe.t', M , 2%
I> FY 15 budgeted Water Utilify revenoe plus Open Space Credit transfer "' $203M
Ii-6.83 or $13.SM of Water Utility R~venue comes from South County
i. Water Use
--2. financial Analysis
.-Prior Year Groundwater Production Charge Projection
.-Current Cost Projection
.-Preliminary Groundwater Production Chotge Projection
_.. FY 16 Analysis and Assumptions
3 . .Schedule
4. Discussion/Wrap up
Page 6 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 3of14
: · Financial Analysis: -Pri~r {Ap~il 2014) -------· -
' Groundwater Production Char e Pro·ection
Groundwater Production Char8!!Sfot Monlcipal & lndostrJal Uses
1, .-.... ___ ,.
400
200
Page7 of 27
,_, __ ~~--. ~-~~
: Financial Analysis: Preliminary Cost Projection
,-----..-
600 ,.
:S03
500
400
"' i j
f
200
ioo
Fiscal Year
I DebtSerVfCe
M SupportSVcs
•Water Tr.eatment
andt&O E-23
•RawWaterT&O &
22
ti Source of Supply
E-2.1
Page 8 of27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 4of14
~----~
Financial Analysis: Preliminary FY 16 CIP
$300 • FY 16-20 CIP
$250 +-------------------•FYl~P
$200
~ $150
$100
$50
$0
FY16 FY1 7 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24
... RWTP Relloblfity Improvem ent Proj ect funding redistributed over 5 year construcHon period
,.. $37.3M co>t Increase ( 16.73) for RWTP Relloblllty lmprov.,ment due to scope refinements
... Anderson, Colero & Guadolupe Dams Seism ic Proj&ets extended one yeor to reduce near term rote impoct
"" $24.5M cost increose (69.6%t Almaden Dam Seis mic relrortt (ratise dam crest, lengtheh splftway, EI RJ
I" Added $21. 7.V. f or Vasona Pumping Pion! Upgrade (pumps need replacement) Page 9 of 27
·-
Financial Analysis: Preliminary Outstanding Debt Projection
I
Water Utility -----
$1,200
1007 991
$1,000 +-95_.s&' ..... -nr-....
846
$000 ...__._ 1----,__ .. c: 653
~ $600 ... ·-I--_,_ ,___ ,...__ I--i 531
445 1~ $400 .... ~'2D-I -,._ r----,..._
265
$200 ,~
_, __
i--·--,_
$0
2014 2015 2018 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Fiscal Year
Commercial Paper •State Revolving F<.fld Loan • Long Term COP'S
Page 10 of 27
)
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 5of14
r --~ -~~------~-..
financial Analysis: BDCP Costs included in Preliminary Analysis
High De liveries, 90% Participation, 50/50 SWP/CVP_, Co st Spl it Scenario
fo Be Paid by water charges North South
$K CVP SWP total Cost/mo* Cost/mo*
FY16 312 122 434 $0.05 $0.03
FY17 400 157 557 $0.09 $0.03
FY 18 14,536 5,816 20,352 $2.94 $1.38
FY19 14,631 5,853 20,484 $2.94 $1.38 '
FY20 14,636 5,855 20,491 $2.94 $1.38
FY21 24,917 9,970 34,887 $5.05 $2.38
FY 22 24,922 9,972 34,894 $5.05 $2.38 '
FY23 34,243 13,703 47,946 $6.93 $3.27 '
FY 24 34,248 13,705 47,9 53 $6.93 $3.27 '
FY25 40,687 16,273 56,960 $8.23 $3.86
10 Yr Su bt otal 03,532 81,426 284,958
• CVP and SWP i mpacts in terms o f cost r month· for average ho usehold
,. Preliminary A rralysis o ssu mes costs associa ted h conve y ance o f Slate Water Project
supply would b e poid for by SWP tax To .Be Paid by SWP tax
Iii> SWP tax for average single .fa mily resid ence would Incre a se from S36/yrfo $64/yr by F'f 2S
Pagel l ofZJ
r· --Ff~ancial Analysis: Drought Respons~ Cost Pr~jec tion .
oetion
(1)
(2}
(3)
Co st Projectio n {$Ml
Cost ~scrietion AF FY 16 FY11 FY18 FY .19
Water Acquisition Agrmts "'14,000AF 7.7 6.9 7.1
Semitropic W;i;ter Take "'30,000AF $.0
Spot M kt Purchase ? 5.0
Enhanced Corrservation N/A s.o
Subtotal Option 1 22.7 6 .9 7.1
Spot Mkt Purchase ? 9.0
Reverse Flow Project 7.0
Total 3&7 6.9 7.1
Option 1 = 12.6% water use reduction Vs Cf 2013, i n cludes $22.7M amugl\t respo nse eosts
Option 2 = 14.3% w ater tfse reduction Vs Cf 2013, i n cludes $31.7M d'rought response cos t s
Option 3 = 19.5% w ate r use reduction Vs Cf 2013, includes $38.7M d rougl\t response costs
7.4
7.4
7.4
FY20
7.6
7.6
7.6
Page 12 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 6of14
. -Financial Analysis: Preliminary
· Groundwater Production Charge Projection
Oplion [1) Oplion(2) Option (3)
Prior Yr : U.6%Water I l
t1.4.3%Water ol.9.5% Water
FYiS FY16
I
I Use Rdctn : UseRdctn*
I
•Use Rdctn"'*
Water Usage (KAf~ 260 260 250 I .245 230
operation Costs ($K) 145,ID 148,571 181,871
I
190;871 190,871 I
Capltal c11sts ($K) U2,149 141,510 76,302 I 76,302 83,302 I
I
Drought I
I I
GROUNDWATER CHARGES Component1 ~ I M1dyeor
Zone W2 M&I GW Charge ($/AF) 747 820 880 I
945 + $1.44/Af 1 . .. $322(
I or 16.3% : 1025 0<36.53
Zone W2 annual% Increase 9.8% 17.S"AI 7.03 26.5% I 37.2%
Zone WS M&I GW C:harge ($/AF) 319 m 348 3$4
+ $13/Af I 359 :,s:.:':f 013.7$ I
I
Zone WS annual% increase 4.4"AI 9.1% 4.73 11.0% I 12.5%
I
I
I
Debt Service Coverage 2.81 2.81 1.80 1.79 1.82
Op & Cap Reserve ($1<) 33,t7o 30,379 35,597 I 34,604 35,463
Supplemental Water Reserve ($K) !l,862 10,807 10,262 10,262 10,262
" Assumes lneremental $9M Op&rafions CoS'f"s-for Imported water purc·ba:S-e$
~ ASsumes lncremen.tc!-$7M Capital Gosts fo r Reve-rse Flow project Page 13 of 27
,-Financial Analysis: Preliminary --
Groundwater Production Charge Projection
7.0% 6.6%
CIP Increase Component 1.0% 0.0%
Total% Increase 17.8% 11.0%
Monthl;t: Bill Increase•
fY 16Planned1ncrease $2.51 $2.51 $2.51 $0.4& $0.48
Drought Component $1.83 $4.Q6 $6.82 $0.52 $0.72
CIP Increase Component $0.24 $0.24 $0.24 $0.00 $0.00
Total Increase $4.58 $6.81 $.9.57 $1.00 $1.20
"'lrripact of Groundwater Production Charge Increase OP.tlons on monthly water l>ill for
the average household liased on 1,500 cubic feet Of water usage
4.4%
8.1%
0.0%
12.5%
$0.48
$0.00
SO.DO
$1.3$
Page 14 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 7of14
---Financial Analysis: -Preliminary ·
, Groundwater Production Charge Projection$
""" Option AdjBg\
(l) 12.6% Water Use Reduction 2014-15 2016-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
No. County (W-2) ~I GNP cbarge ($/AF) $747 $880 $967 $'!.,062 $1,165 $1,279
Y•YGrowth% I 9.9% 17.8% 9.9% 9.8% 9.7% 9.8%1
So. County (W-5) M&l GWP charge ($/AF) $3'!.9 $~ $364 $380 ~397 $41$
Y-YGrowth% I 4.6%. 9.1% 4.6% 4.4% 4.5% 4.5%1
l;tJjBgt
(2) 14.3·~ Water Use Reduction 2014~1 5 2016-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 201g,...20
No . Courify (W-2) M&I GWP charge ($/AF) $747 $945 $1,016 $1,095 $1,182 $1,275
Y-YGrowth% 9 .9% 26.5% 7.5% 7 .. 8% 7.9% 7.9%
So. County (W-5) M:&I GWP charge ($/AF) " $319 ... $354 $370 .. $386 .. $403 .. $421
Y-YGrowth % 4.6% 11.0% 4.5% 4.3% 4.4% 4.5%
Adj Bgt
(3) 19.5% Wa~r Use Red'uctlon 2014-15 2015-~6 2016:17 2017-18 2018-19 20 19-20
No.County (W-2) M&I GWP charga ($/AF) $747 $l,025 $1,084 $1,147 $1,213 $1,284
'i'-Y Growth% 9.9% a1.2% 5.8% S.8% 5.8% 5.9%
so,.County(W-5) M&I GWP c~arge ($/AF) ' S319 • $359 $376 .. $393, $411 • $430
Y-Y~owth% 4.6% 12.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.6% 4.6%
Page 15 of 27
*
'· -Financial Analysis: Preliminary · --
Groundwater Produciion Charge Projections {Option 1)
2000
1BOO
1600
1400
p200
~ 1000 :« 1!i:
800
-1
Page 16 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 8of14
--
i~
,.
Key Capital project funding FY 16 thru FY 25
.. Rine:on@da Re liabili ty
Improvement
($194 .3M}
• Anderson Dam Seismiu
Retrofit {$ J 92.6M}
• $07M (34% of t0t€ll
$198.$M prejeetj to be
~eimourse€::1 oy Safe
Clean Water Measure
• Water Supply Ink Mstr
Plan -Potable R-ewse
($ l 2J.9M JD[Qc;;eholder )
• Calero & Guadalupe
o .ams Seismie Re.trom
($$8.2M)
• A.Jmaden Dam
Improvements {$52.:;3M)
• VeisGna Pumping Ptant
llpgraGle ($21.7M)
• Tilree Creek r!CP
Implementation Fund
($140. l M ie>faceholder)
Pa g e 17 of 27
financial Analysis: Unfunded Capital
..... :::... ' -' ;'
--
D S am eismtc Sf b tity t CMsbfo tl u QI a 0 GlITT ~VO$ 895
SC ADA Small Capitol Improvements-Water Treatment 18
eoy'6fe "fu.tmplrt@ P.lant ~SD ~e@1a<;ement .. --.. R>.
SCADA Small Capital Improvements -RW Trans 8. Dist 6
t.oogi Right~ -~-:1#"~11~ R~(Zfeci water Pt
-_
6.
SCADA Small Capital lmp~ovements -Source of Supply 5
Santo CIO{q rynn~L l..a<ikcige i'll,md J'echeco t~duitJJewc:it~r , 3
Fleet ond Foc;ility Ann€!x Improvements 3
""
~
--Tof!iil .-.
146.S1'
Poge t 8 of 2:7
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 9of14
,, ---
Presentation Outline
1. Water Use
2. Financial Analysis
II> Prior Year Groundwater Produciion Charge Projection
!IP Current Y etlr Cost Projection
II> Preliminary Groundwater Produdlon Charge Projection
-II" FY 16 Analysi s and Assumptions
3. Schedule
4. Discussion/Wrap up
Total Wafer Utility
($1<)
Operations + Oger Projects
Year to year Growth %
.DebtSEll"Ace
Capital
Sou1h ... County
Operations + 0per Projects
Veino year Growth %
Cllpital .Cost Recoi.ery
Adptd. p . ""'d Bdgt roie ... .., ...
2014-15 2015-16 ~
$145,323 $1~1 ,871 $$6'.54a ,
25.1%
$21,394 $28,864
$124,099 ~7.7.W)
14,281 18,202 3,
27.5%
3,006 3,597 (11)
Page 19 of 27
Cost Increase Drivers
$36.SM increase driven by:
$22.7M forDroughl Response Costs
$1.<JM forSWP costs
$0.7M for ~WTP i$en'1 Moint Consul!on1s
$0.6M fonecharge ops & moint increase
reloled to railroad crossing i ssue
$7.SM increase driven by:
Planned deb\ issuance
$7 6.3M Capital Cost driven by:
$10.1 M Pe nitencio Fo rce main
$15.9M South County Rec Water
$8.9M Rin conc<ila upgrade
$8.2M CVP capitol payments
$6.3M Anderson/Other Dam Seismic
$4.9M Fluoriqaiion
$4.SM 5 Year Pipeline Rehab
age
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 10of14
. '"" ---
financial Analysis: FY 16 Analysis and Assumptions
Other Cbarges
ContractTW Surcharge {$/AF)
Non-contract TW Surcharge ($/AF)
Surface Water Master Charg.e ($/AF)
SWP Tax
Revenue
Cost per average household
1% Ad Valorem Taxes
FY2015
Budget
$100.00
$150.00
$18.60
$2lM
$36/Yr
FY 2016
Proj~cfion
$100.00
$150.00
$22.60
$26M
$45/Yr
Revenue $~ S5.34M
$5.17M*
*latest FY 15 1% Ad valorem Tax est imate based on
Assesso r's office gurdonce Page 21 of 27
· --Financial Analysis: Open Space Credit (OSC) Projection
(Option 1)
16,000 .,..
15.000 ----~ ............. ---~-----------------
14,000 ~
1:rpoo +-
12.000 +•,.,.,._..,.,.. _______ ~--~----~-~·
:u.ooo
10,l!OO .,_
's,000
4,000 ~..t--f.*-"-f •t--4.~...,...i.-
3,QOO
2,\)00
l,tlOO ·lJ-l ..... --ll.._. ... l--_.--i ..... +1111>1,
1$ ~ 6' ~'If '),'If "'"" <;/.. ~.. !"/.. 11-"' .. ,..r:.~ "'""" ,,,e:. ..
S Sou#tO:>unty PrQ~rtyl'a><es
TransferGen,aral f'l!ld 1% Prop. Ta_xes
•Transfer North County 1% Prop Taxes
•rranslerWatersbeds ProperfyTaxes
--l'(fQ"e 22
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 11of14
f '" • ------~ -----~--
: Financial Analysis: Drought Reserve Discussion
Concept:
II> Estabfish reserve for next drought emergency
,. Similar to Governor's Ralny Doy Fund concept
• Complement to Supplemental Water Supply Rese rve
Ii' Only used during drought emergency
Purpose/Funding:
Ii'-Minimize rate impacts during next d(ought
• Seed with unspent FY 16 drought res ponse cost bud.get (if applicable)
Ii> Funded by rate increases over1ime during non-drought years
Next Steps:
II> Discuss WJlh stakeholders
• Develop poficy draft
i ....... -----
Presentation Outline
1. Water Use
2. Financial Analysis
._, Prior Year Groundwater Prodvcfien Charge Projection
.,_. Current Year Cost Projection
._, Groundwater Production Charge Projection
llo> FY 15 Analysis and Assumptions
4. Discussien/Wrap up
Page 23 o! 27
Page 24 of 27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 12of14
..........-----~ ---~ -~ --~ -
, 2015 Schedule
• 1d Board meeting: preliminary groundwater production cnarge
analysis, CIP wotkstudy session
• ll Water Retai1ers meeting: preliminary grnwndwate< production
cnarge analysi"$
., 28 Water Commission m~eting; preliminary groundwf!ter
prQductlon cMfge analysis
• .1Q Board meeting: set date pf public hearing
• 10 Boarq meeting: review dPaft C:tP, Budget development update
(2nt1 pass ypclate)
• 27 File Report an.cf mail well owners notice: Protection and
Augmentatlbn of Water Supplies (PAWS) Report
Page 25 of 27
y~ --
: 2015 Sc hedule
• T-8.!lt Water Retailers Meeting: Grourn:Jwater charge recommendation
discussion {tentativ.e date)
• 24 Boar-d meetl ng: Budget developmeAt upd;:ite {3'd pass update)
• 06 Agricultar<il Advisory meeting: GfOllndwater charge recommern:lation
discussion
• 07 tandscapa Advisary meeting: Groundwater charse recommendation
discµssion (tentative date)
• 14 Board meeting: Open public hearing on grol.(ndwater charges
• .f.2_ Water Commission meetiAg: Groundwater charge recommendation
c;liseussion (tentative date)
•I@ Board meeting; South Co1,1nty public hearing on groundwater charges
• ~aoard meeting:-clese pul:)1ie hear.ingpn groundwater ch<lrges
• ~Board meeting: Budget work study session
•!.Beard Meetings; Budgetworksfudyi!esslons,.
• ~ Mapt budget, jfrourtdwa't~ production charg~ & CIR
Page26 of27
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 13of14
12/30/2014
Attachment 1
Page 14of14
' '
RESOLUDON NO. 99-21
ADOPTING "WATER UTILITY TAXING AND PRICING POLICY" AND
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-82
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) adopted a District mission, goals and
objectives on February 19, 1985, in order to conduct a sound water management program that serves the
community; and
WHEREAS, the District Act authorizes the Distri ct to en ter into water sales contracts and to levy and
collect taxes and assessments on propeny within the Distri ct and in the resp ective zones of the Di strict and
s ets forth requirements for groundwater charges and rat es between agricultural and nonagricultural water;
and
WHEREAS, several Board resolutions, as identified in Exhibit "A," are related to th e manage ment of
water resources and the implementation of th.i s water taxing and pricing policy ; and
WHEREAS, several changes which affect revenue so urces and benefit dis tribution hav e occurred since
adoption of Resolution No. 96 -82 . These changes include: (1) passage of Resolution Nos. 98-44 and
98-45 setting agricultural charges for groundwater and surface water at IO percent of the nonagricultural
charges; (2) revisions to the policy governing sale of noncontract water in 1998 ; (3) pending completion
of an agreement to act as the wholesaler to deli ver recycl ed water in South County.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the District as follows :
1. The policy of the District in the areas of ta'%ation and water pricing for water utility r evenues
shall be and is hereby adopted:
Policy Statement
The intent of th is water utility taxing and pricin g policy is to provi de revenue for the management
of water resources and operation of the water utility enterprise. This policy es tablish es a framework
for establishing a system of water charges as pennined by the District Act to meet revenue
requirements and to allocate costs amongst the beneficiaries . The general approach is to charge the
recipients of the various benefits for the benefits received from the District's comprehensi ve water
utility program .
The consumptive and nonconsumptive benefits provided by District water supply facilitie s and
operations are listed and described below:
•
•
•
•
RLI04SS
Provision of a water supply and effective management of water resources available to the
community from a variety of sources of s upply, transmission, and water treatment facilities
operated by the District.
Protection of water quality through the purification and treatment of water and the protection
of water supplies .
Stewardship of watersheds and riparian corridor .
Administration of related programs and projects such as recycled water and water
conservation administered solely by the District or in partnership with another organization .
Attachment 2
Page 1of4
I
L.
Page 2
Res. 99-21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy" and Res~incling Resolution No . 96-82
• Ancillary flood protection .
• Recreation, such as fishing, boating, picnicking, hiking, and other related recreation activities.
• Support for the economic well being of the community .
• Protection of the community infrastructure from subsidence.
2. Policy Implementation
The following water taxing and pricing concepts and framework shall be implemented in order to
provide for revenue in order to continue providing direct and ancillary benefits to the customers of
the District and the community of Santa Clara County .
Water Taxing and Pricing Concepts
• Water Pooling-. Water is considered to be a single commoclity irrespective of the water 's
source or cost. It is a single commodity whether it is from water provided locally, imported.
or recycl ed , and all users benefit from the availability of multiple sources of water. .
• WaJer Facilities Cost Pooling : AJI water supply fac ilities contribute to the common benefit
of effective water resources management. In general, the water charges and property taxes
are based on the conunon benefits of the capi tal and operations outlays , rather than reference
to named facilities , with the exception of the liability for bonded indebtedness which is
applied to each zone of benefit.
• Waler Resources Manageme11t : Water supplies are managed, through taxing and pricing,
to obtain the effective utilization of the water resources of the District to the advantage of the
present and future populations of the County. Thi s concept provides for development of
taxing and pricing structures that will achieve the effective use of available re sources and
conserve supplies for potential drought cond itions .
• Revenue Pooling: For the most part, water util ity revenues are collected in a common fund
and not designated for a specific cost. Such revenues are available for the general capital and
operating outlays of the water utility enterprise. Some revenues such as certain property taxes
are specifically designated for debt service and the fixed costs of the State Water Project, and
are not available to the conunoil fund . Water charges are established to provide the revenues
that are required in the common fund for general capital and operating outlays and that are
over and above revenues from ad valorem taxes, interest, and miscellaneous sources. Th.is
provides flexib ility in managing continuing operations and funding capital outlays .
Water Taxing and Pricing Framework
The following procedures are intended as a general framework to guide staff in the development of
a water rate structure implementing this policy:
• Zones of Bene.fir. Zones of benefit are to be identified and established in accordance with
the District Act Groundwater charges and property taxes are levied for the benefits received
by the water users and property owners benefitting from that zone. For each zone, a basic
2
RLI045 5
Attachment 2
Page 2 of 4
Page 3
Res. No. 99-21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy" and Rescinding Resolution No. 96-82
water user charge is determined for current groundwater and raw surface water users to be
applied to the quantities of water used or consumed.
• Basic Waler Charge Zones: The objective of establishing variqus water charge zones is to
recover costs for the benefits resulting from conservation, import, and recharge of water
which occur only within that zone. Water charges are levied for water producing operations,
such as groundwater pumping and raw surface water diversion. In addition, users may be
subject to specific charges that meet special needs of a group of users, such as water master
charges for surface water deliveries, a capital charge for equipment or facilities, and power
costs for pumping.
• Treated Waler Surcharge: A treated water surcharge shall be added to the basic water
charge for the price of treated surface water delivered by the District. The charge is to be
established at an amount that would promote the effective use of available water resources.
The charge may differ between treatment plants to better manage regional variations in
groundwater conditions.
• Costs for Specific Benefits : Whenever costs assoc;iated with specific benefits are clearly and
easily measurable, those costs shall be charged to tlle beneficiaries, in accordance with their
specific zones ofbenefit. Where there is a question as to the identity of the beneficiary or the
method of measuring the benefit, the allocation of costs should remain flexible and be
determined in accordance with accepted practices and sound judgements based on the four
water pricing concepts. The District recognizes and supports the State Legislature's
limitation imposed on the District that rates for agricultural water shall not exceed one-fourth
of the rate for all water other than agricultural water. In order to encourage the continuance
of agricultural use ofland in the County, to encourage the preservation of open space, to defer
intensification of users and to further support the limitation imposed by the State Legislature,
it is the District's policy that rates for agricultural water shall not exceed one-tenth the rate
for all water other than agricultural water.
Both water charges and property taxes are used to recover costs incurred for the benefit of
current water users. The costs for future supply sources can be recovered using current
revenues or through project specific long-term financing.
• Balancing Costs: The District recognizes that there may be imbalances between revenues
and costs within a zone of benefit from year to year . The District will strive to achieve
balance over the long-term in accordance with the District Act and to properly charge
recipients for the benefits received.
• Incentives : Incentives in the fonn of subsidies may be provided in order to reduce the price
of specific sources of water in order to optimize use of available or future water resources.
• Recycled Water: From time to time, the District may enter into agreements to provide
wholesale delivery or other services related to recycled water. The District will strive to
recover the costs of these facilities consistent with the pooling ooncepts outlined above, while
adhering to the specifics of any agreement.
RLI0455 3 Attachment 2
Page 3 of 4
r
i
Page 4
Res. No. 99-21
Resolution Adopting "Water Utility Taxing and Pricing Policy" and Rescinding Resolution No. 96-82
3. Executive and Staff Limitations
District staff are authorized to develop a water rate structure which meets the objectives set forth
herein, in accordance \llith the District Act, and using the concepts set forth above. The District's
rate structure is implemented only by resolutions approved by the Board of Dlrecto.rs .
Staff is authorized to recommend water charges for consideration by the Board in accordance with
the District Act. Water charges, if any, shall be recommended by staff each year be at fixed and
uniform rates for agricultural water and for all water other than agricultural water, respectively,
except that each such rate for agricultural water shall be one-tenth of the rate for all water other than
agricultural water. The Board has determined that agricultural use oflands is of value to the County
and the state, and that agricultural lands provide an open space benefit. The Board's limiting staff
to a recommendation of agricultural water rates below the maximum allowed by the District Act will
benefit water users County\llide, and is necessary to carry out the policies of the State Legislarure
and the District Board of Directors.
Staffis authorized to prepare, for the Board's consideratton, resol\ltions for the collection of property
taxes as needed and authorized under applicable laws.
4. Previous Policy R~dnded
The "Water Taxing and Pricing Policy," adopted by Resolution No. 96-82, is hereby rescinded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District on
March 16, 1999 bythefollowingvote:
AYES : Directors Gross, Zlotnick, Judge, Kamei, Sanchez, Estremera , Wilson
NOES : Directors None
ABSENT: Directors None
ATTEST: LAUREN L. KELLER
~~~
Rl..10455
SANT A CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
~y ~Ad-~irectors
4
Attachment 2
Page 4 of 4
RESOLUTION NO. 12-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF D IRECTORS OF
THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING PROCEDURES
FOR THE lMPOSITION OF SURFACE WATER CHARGES
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 4 of the District Act, th e purposes of t he District Act a r e to
authorize the District to provide comprehensive wate r management for all beneficial uses within
Santa Cl a ra County; and
WHEREAS, Section 5(5) of the Di strict A ct authorizes District to do any and every lawful act
necessary to be done that sufficient water may be available for beneficial uses within Santa
Clara County; and
WHEREAS, Section 5(12) authorizes the District to make contracts and d o all acts necessary
for the fu ll exercise of all powers vested in the District; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 218, adopted on November 6, 1996, added Articles XlllC a nd XlllD t o
the California Constitution which impose certain procedural and substantive requirements with
respect to the im position of certain new or increased fees and charges; and
l '
WHEREAS, whether legally required or not, th e District Board believes it to be in the best
interest of the community to al ign its practices with respect to the imposition of surface water
cha rge s to mirror the majority protest requirements of Article XIII D. section 6 applicable to
charges for water ser vices to the extent possible; and
WHEREAS, the District Board believes it to be in the best interest of the community to record its
decisions regard ing implementation of th e provisions r e lating to imposition of surface water
ch arges and to provide the community with a guide to those decision s an d how th ey have been
m ad e; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Santa C lara Valley Water District does hereby
resolve as foll ows:
SECTION 1. Statement of Legislative Intent. It is the Board of Directors' intent in adopting
this reso·lution, to adopt the notice, hearing, and majority protest procedure proceedings that are
consistent, and in conformance with, Articles X lllC and XlllD of the California Constitution and
with the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act and the provisions of other statutes
authorizi ng imposition of surface water charges. To the extent that these requ ireme nts are
legally required to supercede the requirements set forth in the District Act, these provisions ~re
intended t-0 p revail.
SECTION 2. Definitions.
A. Record Owner. The District will provide the re q u ired notice to the Record O wner.
"Record Owner" means the record owner of the property on which the surface water
use -facility is present, and the 1enant(s) who are District surface water permittees liable
for the p ayment of the surface water charge.
Attachment 3
1of5
Resolution 12-10
A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the San ta Clara Valley Wat er District Ad opting
Procedures tor the Imposition of Surface Water Charoes ---~
B . Charge Zone. "Charge Zone" means the District zone (i.e . Zone W -2 or Zone W -5) that
a surface wate r user's turnovt is located, which is applicable in identifying the proposed
surface water charge. Surface water users that rece ive surface water outside of either
Zone W-2 or Zone W-5 are deemed to be located in the zone to which the s urface water
user's turnout is most nearly located.
SECTION 3 . Surface Water Charge Proceeding. T he following procedures will be used :
A. Those Subject to the charge. The Record Owners of the existing surface use-facilities.
B. Amount of Charge. A formula or schedule of charges by which the customer can easily
calculate the potential surface wate r charge will be incl uded in the notice. The surface
water charge is comprised of a basic user charge and a su rface water mas te r charge.
The surface water charge must comp ly with t he following substantive requ irements:
1. Reven ues derived from the surface water charge will not be used for any
purpose other than that for which the charge is imposed.
2. Reven ues derived trorn the surface water charge will not exceed tire direct and
in direct costs required to provide the service .
3. T he amount of the surface water charge must not exceed the proportional cost of
the servi ce attributable to the property.
4. No charge may be i mposed for a service unless the service i s actually used by,
or immedi ately available to the property owner (or, if applica ble, the tenant).
5. No cha rge can be imposed for general governmental services where the service
is available t o the public at large in su bstantially the same manner as it is to
property owners.
C. Notice. The following guidelines apply to giving notice of the surface water charge.
1. Record Owner(s) of each pa rcel subject to the surface water charge, mean ing
any parcel with a surface water use-facility, w ill be determined from the las t
equalized p roperty tax roll. If the property tax roll indicates more than one owner,
each owner will be sen t the notice . District surface water permittees liable fo r the
payment of the surface water charge will also be provided with the notice.
2 . The no1ice must be sent at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the
public hearing on the surface water charge.
3 . Failure of any person to rec ei ve the notice will not i nvalida1e the proce edings.
Attachment 3
2 of 5
..
Resolution 12-10
A Resolution of the Board of D irectors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District Adopting
Procedures for the Imposition of Surf ace Water Charges
~~~~~~~~=--~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~
D. Surface Water Charge Protest. Th e following guidelines apply to the surface water
c harge p rotest procedure:
1. The notice will be malled to all affected Record Owners at least forty-five (45)
days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed surface water
charge.
2 . Written protests must be forwarded to the Clerk of the Board by mail or in person,
sealed in an envelope which conceals the contents, with the property address or
APN written on the outside of the envelope. To be counted, protests must be
received no later than the date for return of protests stated on the notice, or the
close of the public hearing , whichever is later.
3 . A protest must be signed under penalty of perjury. For properties with more than
one Record Owner. a protest from any one surface water user-facility will count
as a protest for the property. No more than one protest will be counted for any
given property.
4 . Only protests with origi nal signatures will be accepted. Photocopied signatures
will not be accepted. Protests will not be accepted via e-mail. Protests must be
subrflitted in sealed envelopes identifyrng the property on which the surface
water user-f acility is located, and include the legibly printed name of the signator.
Protests not submitted as required by th is Resolution will not be counted .
5. This proceeding is not an election.
6 . Written Protests must remain sealed until the tabulation of protests commences
at the conclusion of the public hearing . A written protest may be submitted or
changed by the person who submitted the protest prior to tne conclusion of the
public testimony on the proposed charge at the public hearing.
7. Prior to the public hearing, neither the protest nor the envelope in which it is
submitted will be treated as a public record, pursuant to the Government Code
section 6254(c) and any other applicable law, in order to prevent potential
unwarranted invasions of the submitter's privacy and t o protect t he integrity of the
protest process.
E. Tabulatihg PrQtests. The followi ng guidelines apply to tabulating protests:
1. It will be the responsibility of the Clerk of the Board to determine the validity of all
p rotests. The Clerk will accept as valid all protests except those in the following
categories:
a. A photocopy which does not c ontain an original signature;
b . A n unsigned protest;
c. A protest without a legible printed name;
d. A protest which appears to be tampered With or otherwise invalid based
upon its appearance or method of de!ivery or other circumstances;
Attachment 3
3 of 5
Resolution 12-10
A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water DistrictA<;topting
Procedures for the Imposition of Surface Water Charges
e. A protest submitted to the District via e~mail;
f. A protest submitted in an envelope that does not have the address or
APN written on the outside of the envelope;
g. A protest signed by someone other than the Record Owner for the APN.
The Clerk's decision , after consultation with the District Counsel, that a protest is invalid
is final.
2. An impartial person, designated by the governing board, who does not have a
vested interest in the outcome of the proposed charg.e will tabulate the written
protests submftted, and not withdr awn. The impartial person may be a member
of the Clerk of the Board Office.
3. A Record Owner who has subm,itted a protest may withdraw that protest at any
ti me up until the conclusion of the f inal public hearing on the su.rface water
charge.
4. A property owner's fail ure to receive notice of the surf ace water charge will n ot
i nvalidate the pr oceedings conducted under th·is procedure.
F. Public H~aring .
1 . At the public hearrng, the District Soard will hear and consider all public
testimo ny regarding the proposed surface water charge and accept written
protests until the Close of the public h earing, Which hearing may be continued
from time to t ime.
2. The District Board m ay impose reasonable time l imits on both the le ngth of the
entire hearing and the length of each speaker's testimony.
3. At the conclusio n of the hearing, the GI.erk ot the Board, or other neutral person
designated to do the tabulation will complete tabulation of the prot ests from
Record Owners, including those received c;luring public hearing .
4. It it is not possible to tabulate the protests on the same clay as the public hearing,
or if additional time is necessary tor pubtrctestimony, lhe Oistrict Board may
continue the publ ic hearing to a later date to receive additional testimony,
information or to finish tabulating the protests; or may close the public hearin,g
and contint.1e the item to a future meeting to finish tabL1l ating the p r otests,
5 . If according to the final tabulation of the protests from Record Owners, the
number of protests submitted against the proposed s urface. water charge (or
increase .pf the surface water charge) within a Charge Zone exceeds 50% ptus
on:e· of ¢:ijhsr: ~) th e identified number of parcels within that Char ge Zone, or (ii)
t he identified number cf owners and tenants who are subject to the surf p ee water
charge within that Charg e Zone, then a "major ity protest'' exists and the District
Board of Directors will not impose the surfaoo water charge within that Charge
zone. ·
Attachment 3
4of 5
Resolution 12 -10
A Resolution of the Board of D irectors of the Santa Clara Valley Water D istrict Adopting
Procedures for the Imposition of Surface Water Charges
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Water District by the
following vote on February 14, 2012.
AYES: Directors T. Est re mera, D. Gage, J. J udge~ P. Kwok, R. Santos, B. Schmidt,
L. LeZotte
NOES: Directors None
ABSENT: Directors None
ABSTAIN: Directors None
ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMG
Clerk/Board of Directors
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
Chair/Board of Directors
Attachment 3
5 of 5
This page intenti.onal ly left blank.
RESOLUTION NO. i 2-11
AN AMENDED AND RESTATED RE:SOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTHICT ADOPTING PROCEDURES
FOR THE IMPOSITION OF GROUN DWATER PRODUCTION CHARGES
WHEREAS, Section 26 of the District Actlncludes provisio ns relating to imposition and notice
and opportunity to be heard on the imposition of g(oundwater production charges, inch.iding the
opportunity to contest the imposition; and
WHEREAS, SeGtion 26 of the District Act provides the purposes for which grovndwater
production charges can be collected as follows:
1. To pay for construction, operation and maintenance of imported water facillties;
2. To pay for importe~ water purchases;
3 . To pay for construction, operation and maintenance of facilities to conserve or distribute
wate r including facilities tor groundwater recharge , surface distribution, and puritication
and tre atment of water;
4. To pay tor debt incurred for the above purposes.
WHEREAS, Proposition .2i 8, .adopted on November 6 , 1996, added Articles XlllC and XlllD to.
the California Constitution which impose certain procedural and s ubstantive requi rements with
respect to the imposition of certain new or increased fees and charges; and
WHEREAS, whether the District's groundwater production charge is assessed upon a parcel of
property or upon a person as an incident of property ownership such that it is subject to
proposition 218 is a s ubject currently before the courts and has not yet been finally decided; and
WHEREAS,. regardless of whether the District is legally required to or not, the District Board
believes it to be in the best interest of the community to align its practices w ith respect to the
imposition of groundwater production charges to minor the majority protest requirements of
Article XI II D section 6 applicable to charges for water to the exient possibfe; and
WHEREAS, some of the requirements of the majority protest procedure are unclear and require
further judicial interpretation or legislative implementation~ and WHEREcAS, the District Board
believes it to be in the be~t interest of the community to record its decrsions regarding
implementation of the provisions relating to imposition of groundwater production charges and
to provide the community with a guide to those decisions and how they have been maee;
NOW .. THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Wate r Oistrict does hereby
resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Statement of Legislative lntent. It i s the Board of Director's intent in adopting
this amended and restated resolution, to adopt the notice, hearing, and majority protest
procedure proceedings that are consistent, and in conformance with, Articles XlllC and Xlll Q of
the California Constitution and with the Proposition 218 Omnibus lmplementati.on Act and the
provisi ons of other statutes authorizing imposition of water charges.· To the extent that these
requirements are legally required to supercede the requirements sel forth in the District Act,
these provisions are intended to prevail.
Attachment 4
1of5
___ , ___ , ___ , _______ _
Resolution 12-11
An Amended and Restated Resolution ot the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Varley Water
District Adopting Procedures for the Imposition of Groundwater Production Charges
SECTION 2 . Definition of Record Owner. The DistriGt Act authorfzes the groundwater
production charge to be noticed and imposed on "owners or operators of water-producing
facilities" which ls not based on property ownership, while Article X III D requires that notice be
provided to the owner of a parcel whose name and address appears on the last equalized
secured property tax assessment roll. In order ~o resolve the differences between these two
approaches, the District will provide the required notice to the record owner of the property on
which the water-producing facility is present, as well as to the owners or operators of water
producing facilities (Who are t enants of that real property directly liable to pay the groundwater
production charge to the District).
SECTION 3. Groundwater Productiqn Charge Proceeding. The following procedures will be
used:
A. Those Subject to the charge. The Record Owner$ of existing water producing Wells
i ncluding wa,.ter supply and extraction/environmental wells, wMther currently active ot
not.
E. Amount 9f Charge. A formula or schedufe of charges by which tJ1e customer can easily
calculate t.he potential charge will be i ncluded in the notice. The charge must comply
with the following substantive requirements:
1. Revenues derived from the charge will not be used for any purpose other than
that for which the charge is imposed.
2. Revenues derived from the charge w ill not exceed the direct and indirect costs
required to provide the service.
3. The amount of the charge must 11ot exceed the proportional cost of the service
attributable to the property.
4. No charge may be imposed for a service unless the service is actually used by,
or Immediately available to the owner.
5. No charge can be imposed for general governmental services where the service
is ava]lable to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to
property owners.
C. Notice. The following guidelines apply to giving notice of the g roundwater production
charge.
1 . The record owner{s) of each parcel subject to the charge, meaning any parcel
with a water-producing facility, w ill be deterrfHned from the rast equalized
property ta><: roll . 1f the property tax roll indicates more than one owner, each
owner wm be sent the notiee. Where tenants are d i rectly liable to pay the
groundwater production charge to the Oistrict, they will also be provided with the
notice.
--··----
Attachment 4
2of5
Resolution 12-11
An Amended and Restated Resolµtion of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District Adopting Procedures for the Im position of Groundwater Production Charges
2. The notice must be sent at least forty-five (45) days prior to the date set for the
public hearing on the charge.
3 . Failure of any person to receive notice will not Invalidate the proceedings.
D. Groundwater Production Charge Protest. The following guidelines apply to the
protest procedure:
1. The notice wm be mailed to all affected Record Owners at least forty~five {45)
days prior to the date of the public hearing on the proposed charge.
2 . Written protests must be forwarded to the Clerk of the Board by mail or in person,
seafed in an envelope which conceals the contents, with the property address or
APN written on the outside of the envelope. To be coi,mted, protests must be
received no later than the date tor return of protesls statect on the notice. or the
dose of the public hearf ng, Whichever is ra ter.
3 . .A protest must be signed under penalty of perjury. For properties with more than
one Record Owner, a protest from any one will count as a protest for the
propert:t No more than one protest will be counted for any given property .
4. Only protests with original signatures w111 be accepted. Photocopied signatures
will not be accepted. Protests will not be accepted via e -mail. Protests must be
submitted in sealed envelopes identifying the pr<Jperty on which the well is
located, and include the legibly printed name of the slgnator. Protests not
submitted as required by this amended and restated esolution Will not be
counted.
5, This proceeding is not an etection.
6. Written Protests must remain se<.;lled until the tabulation of protests commences
at the conclusion of the public hearing. A written protest may be submltteq, o r
changed, or withdrawn by the person Who submitted the protest prior to tbe
conclusion of the public testimony on the proposed' charge at the public hearing.
7. Prior to the public hearing·, neither the protest nor the envelope in which it is
$Ubmjtted wlH be treated as a public reoord1 pursuant to the Government Code
sectkm 6254{c) and any other applicable law, in order to prevent potentral
1..mwa.rranted lrivas1ons of the submitter's privacy and to protect the inte!)rity of the
protest process.
E. Tabulating Prote$ts. The following guidelines apply to tabulating protests:
1. lt wtll be the respohsibility oJ the Clerk of the Board to determi.ne the validity of all
protests. /:he Clerk Will ac.cept as valid all protests except those in the folrow ing
categories:
a. A photocopy Which does not cont ain an orlglnaf signature;
b. An unsigned protest;
Attachment 4
3 of 5
..
Resolution 12-11
An Amende.d and Restated Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District Adopting Procedures for the fmposition of Groundwater Production Charges
c, A prot~st without a legible printed name;
d.. A protest which appears to be tampered with er otherwise invalid based
upon its appearance or method of delivery or other circ1,1mstances;
e. A protest submitted to t he District via e~mail;
i . A protest submitted in: an envelope that does not have the adoress or
APN written on the outside of the envelope;
g. A protest signed by s.orneone other than the Record Owner tor the APN.
Ttie Cle-rk's decision, after consultat ion with the District Counsel, that a protest Is invalid
is final.
2. An impartial person, designateo by the governing boaro. who does not have a
vested interest in the outcome of the: propased charge will tabiilaJe the written
protests submitted , and not withdrawn. T he impartial person may be a member
of the Clerk of the Boaro Office.
3. A Record Owner whe has submitted a protest may withdraw the protest at any
time up until the conclusion of the final public hearing on the charge.
4. A property owner's failure to receive notice of the charge will not invalidate the
proceedings conducted under this procedure:
F. Publfc Hearing
1. At the public hearing, the District Board will hear and consider all public
testimony regarding the proposed charge and accept written protests untr1 the
close of the public hearing, which hearing may be continued from time to time.
2 . The District Board may Impose reasonable time rtmits on both: the length of the
entire hearing and the length of each speakers testimony.
3. At the conclusion of the .hearing, the Clerk of ttie Board; or other neutral person
designated to do the t abulation will c:orrrplete tabulation of the protests from
Record Owners, incluc!ing those received during public hearing.
4. If it is not possible to tabulate the protests on the same day as the public hearing,
or ir additional time is necessa;ry, tor pubJic; testimony, the District Board may
continue the public hearing to a later date to, receive additional testimony.
information or fa finish tabulating the protests; or may close the public hearing
and continue the item to a future meeting to fin ish tabulating the protests.
5. If according to the fina.I tabulation of tile protests from Record Owners, the
number of protests submitted against the proposed increase of the grot:Jndwater
production charge within a grqundwater production charge zone exceeds 50%
plus one of either: (a) the identified number of parcels withln that groundwater
production charge zone, er (b) the identified number of owners and operators
within that groundwater production charge zone who are subject to the increased
groundwater production charge, then a "majority protest" exists and the District
Attachment 4
4of5
Resolution 12-11
An Amended a nd Restated Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water
.District Adopting Procedures for the Imposition of Groundwater Production Charges
S.ECTlON 4
Board of Directors will not impose any incr ease to. the groundwater production
ch arge within that groundwater production charge zone.
Resolution No. i 1 ~03 adopted by the Distrfet on January 25, 2011 and Resolu tion No. 10-06
adopted by lhe District on .January 26, 201 O are both hereby amended and restated i n their
entirety as set forth in this amended and restated resolution. This amended and restated
resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of Santa C lara Valley Water District by the
following vote on February 14, 2012 .
AYES: Directors T. Estremera ,
L. LeZotte
NOES: Directors None
ABSENT: Directors None
ABSTAIN: Directors None
ATTEST: MICHELE L. KING, CMC
D. Gage, J. Judge, P . !<Mok, R. Santos, B .. Schmidt.
::Nr;:J,~RICT
LINDA J. LEZOTTE
Chair/Board of rnrectors
Attachment 4
5 of 5