Water Replenishment District
Draft Budget Workshop
Fiscal Year 13-14
Board of Directors Meeting
May 10, 2013, 2:00 p.m.
2
1. 12-13 Midyear Budget Review and 13-14 Draft Budget Presentation – February 20th Board of Directors Meeting 2:00 p.m.
2. 13-14 Draft Budget Presentation – March 6th Board of Directors Meeting 2:00 p.m.
3. Convene Water Code Public Hearing/13-14 Draft Budget Presentation – April 3rd Board of Directors Meeting 2:00 p.m.
4. Budget Workshop – April 17 at 2:00 p.m. – Continuation of Public Hearing on the Replenishment Assessment, Draft Budget Presentation and Replenishment Assessment Discussion.
Fiscal Year 13-14 Budget Schedule
3
5. Budget Workshop – April 23 at 2:00 p.m. – Meeting at the City of Norwalk, Norwalk Arts and Sports Complex – Hargit Room.
6. Budget Workshop – April 25 at 9:00 a.m. – Audit and Budget Advisory Committee (ABAC) Meeting
7. Budget Workshop – April 30 at 2:00 p.m. – Special Meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee
Fiscal Year 13-14 Budget Schedule
4
8. Budget Workshop – May 1 at 2:00 p.m. - Board of Directors Meeting – Continuation of Public Hearing on the Replenishment Assessment, Draft Budget Presentation and Replenishment Assessment Discussion, Close Public Hearing on the Replenishment Assessment.
9. Budget Workshop – May 10 at 2:00 p.m. - Board of Directors Meeting – Open the Proposition 218 Public Hearing, Draft Budget Presentation and Replenishment Assessment Discussion and possible adoption of Replenishment Assessment.
Fiscal Year 13-14 Budget Schedule
WRD service area = 420 square miles
720,000 acre feet used per year
43 cities
250,000 acre feet of groundwater from local water wells
WRD supplements naturalgroundwater recharge
Population is about 4 million (over 10% of California’s population)
How Much is an Acre Foot of Water?
An acre foot is about 326,000 gallons.
It is the amount of water used by two average families in a year.
Equals the amount needed to fill a football field one foot deep in water.
Groundwater provides of total water demand
In our region…
40%
Water Wells – over 400 active wells
West Basin Key Well 3S/14W-22L01
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
19
30
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ate
r E
lev
ati
on
(f
ee
t fr
om
se
a le
ve
l)
Central Basin Key Well 2S/13W-10A01
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ater
Ele
vati
on
(fee
t fr
om
sea
leve
l)
1900s-1950sOVERDRAFT
• Plunging water levels
• Loss of groundwater supply
• Wells going dry
• Seawater intrusion
WRD formed in 1959 by a vote of the citizens to preserve and protect groundwater.
LA County built seawater barrier wells and operated spreading grounds.
Court established pumping limits for cities and water companies.
Solutions
Natural groundwater
wasn’t enough to
meet demand
How WRD Manages the Basins
Replenishment of groundwater
Groundwater clean up
Basin monitoring
Basin modeling
Spreading Grounds
Alamitos Barrier
Dominguez Gap Barrier
West Coast Barrier
San Gabriel spreading grounds
Rio Hondo spreading grounds
Facilities owned and operated by LA County Flood Control District
Forebay(unconfined aquifers)
Surface Recharge Spreading Basin
Bedrock
(Pico Formation)
Pressure Area (confined aquifers)
Clay (aquitard)
Clay (aquitard)
Clay (aquitard)
Aquifer
Aquifer
Aquifer
Ocean
Surface Recharge of Groundwater
Seawater Intrusion
Coastal Aquifer - No Pumping
Water Table
Ocean
Sea Level
FreshWater
BrackishWater
Equilibrium
Water Table
Ocean
Sea Level
BrackishWater
Coastal Aquifer - With Pumping
Seawater Intrusion
FreshWater
Water Table
Ocean
Brackish WaterFresh Water
Sea Level
FreshWater
BrackishWater
Coastal Aquifer - Intrusion Advancing
Seawater Intrusion
Water Table
Ocean
Brackish WaterFresh Water
Sea Level
FreshWater
BrackishWater
Coastal Aquifer - Pumping and Injection
Seawater Intrusion
Water Table
Ocean
Brackish WaterFresh Water
Sea Level
FreshWater
Stranded Brackish
Water (Saline Plume)
BrackishWater
Coastal Aquifer - Pumping and Injection
Seawater Intrusion
Groundwater MonitoringGroundwater Monitoring
Nearly 300 monitoring wells at over 50 locations (more wells planned)
ANNUAL GROUNDWATER QUALITY TESTING
Over 100 Chemicals Monitored
Two Annual Reports to Describe BasinsTwo Annual Reports to Describe Basins
West Basin Key Well 3S/14W-22L01
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
19
30
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ate
r E
lev
ati
on
(f
ee
t fr
om
se
a le
ve
l)
West Basin Key Well 3S/14W-22L01
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
19
30
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ate
r E
lev
ati
on
(f
ee
t fr
om
se
a le
ve
l)
Central Basin Key Well 2S/13W-10A01
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ater
Ele
vati
on
(fee
t fr
om
sea
leve
l)
Central Basin Key Well 2S/13W-10A01
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
19
35
19
40
19
45
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
20
05
20
10
Gro
un
dw
ater
Ele
vati
on
(fee
t fr
om
sea
leve
l)Results of WRD
basin management
Rising water levels & drought
protection
BUDGET AWARDS
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA):
The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award – WRD received this prestigious award on its first application for the 2011-12 fiscal year and also for 2012-13.
California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO):
The Meritorious Award – WRD has received this award 7 times from 2004-05 through 2010-11
Excellence in Budgeting Award – WRD received this prestigious award on its first application for the 2011-12 fiscal year and also for 2012-13.
We will be submitting our 2013-14 budget for consideration.
25
19 Financial Awards
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
The Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting – This has been received by WRD for the last 8 years from 2003-04 through 2010-11. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year 2011-12 is currently being review by the GFOA.
There are a total of only ten public water agencies who have been awarded all three of these awards in the State
of California.
Only three cities in our service area have attained all three financial awards.
26
19 Financial Awards
27
2013 -14 Draft Budget
On May 6, 2011, the Board of Directors adopted the 2011-12 budget along with the District’s 5-year forecast.
This analysis projected a Replenishment Assessment of $318 per acre-foot for fiscal year 2013 -14
28
5 Year Replenishment Assessment / Reserve Forecast
244.00
28
Adopted by the Board of Directors with stakeholder input during the District’s 2011-12 annual budget
workshops
29
Draft Budget Assumptions*:
1. Estimated pumping of 243,000 acre-feet for 2013-14
2. Net decrease in Project, Program and Administrative costs of ($1,918,000)
3. Includes litigation costs of $2.5M
* The 2013-14 draft budget assumes full payment of the Replenishment Assessment
2013 -14 Budget Assumptions
31
COMPARISON12-13 Adopted vs.
13-14 Draft Budget Upper Limit ($298) Scenario 12-13 13-14
(in millions of dollars) Adopted Draft Budget Budget Difference
Water Costs $29.39 $41.38 $12.00
Projects, Programs, Admin 17.19 15.28 (1.92)
Other Supportive Costs 3.15 3.77 0.62
Capital Improvement/Other 6.49 8.48 1.99
Replenishment of Reserves 8.66 5.75 (2.91)
Less: Other Sources (5.25) (2.21) 3.04 Cost to Provide Service $59.63 $72.45 $12.82
Cost of Service - $298DRAFT WRD FISCAL YEAR 13-14
[A] [B] [C] [B]-[A] Description 2012/13 2013/14 12/13 Budget Adopted Proposed compared to Budget Budget 13/14 Budget Operating Expenditures Water Supply Purchases $ 29,385,000 $ 41,380,000 $ 11,995,000 Water Conservation $ 1,033,000 $ 787,000 $ (246,000) Water Supply Production - Vander Lans $ 2,486,000 $ 2,480,000 $ (6,000) Goldsworthy Desalter $ 1,237,000 $ 1,208,000 $ (29,000) Montebello Forebay Recycled Water $ 630,000 $ 601,000 $ (29,000) Groundwater Resource Planning $ 1,430,000 $ 907,000 $ (523,000) Water Quality Improvement Program $ 290,000 $ 352,000 $ 62,000 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) $ 316,000 $ 242,000 $ (74,000) Groundwater Monitoring $ 1,044,000 $ 1,042,000 $ (2,000) Safe Drinking Water Program $ 116,000 $ 115,000 $ (1,000) Dominguez Gap Barrier Recycled Water $ 252,000 $ 242,000 $ (10,000) Replenishment Operations $ 868,000 $ 571,000 $ (297,000) Hydrogeology Program $ 1,021,000 $ 794,000 $ (227,000) Groundwater Reliability Improvement Prog $ 506,000 $ 310,000 $ (196,000) Water Education $ 1,153,000 $ 796,000 $ (357,000) Board of Directors $ 366,000 $ 364,000 $ (2,000) General Manager $ 374,000 $ 373,000 $ (1,000) Administration $ 3,328,000 $ 3,316,000 $ (12,000) GASB 45 (Required Retirement Funding) $ 745,000 $ 777,000 $ 32,000 Total Project, Program & Administrative Costs $ 46,580,000 $ 56,657,000 $ 10,077,000
Other Special Programs & Supportive Costs
Litigation $ 2,553,000 $ 2,498,000 $ (55,000) Proportionality Study, Public Notices & Hearings $ - $ 520,000 $ 520,000 Election Expense $ 600,000 $ 750,000 $ 150,000 Total Other Special Programs & Supportive Costs $ 3,153,000 $ 3,768,000 $ 615,000 Capital Improvement Costs Capital Improvement Program (CIP) RA Share $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Debt Financing/Other Income and Expense $ 6,488,000 $ 8,426,000 $ 1,938,000 Total Capital Improvement Program Expenses 6,488,000 8,476,000 1,988,000 Replenishment of Reserve $ 8,655,000 $ 5,750,000 $ (2,905,000) Total Revenue Requirements $ 64,876,000 $ 74,651,000 Operating Income Vander Lans Income/MWD Subsidy/OCWD $ 896,000 $ 964,000 $ 68,000 Goldsworthy Desalter Income/MWD Subsidy $ 1,350,000 $ 1,245,000 $ (105,000) Use of Water Purchase Carryover Fund 3,000,000 - Subtotal 5,246,000 2,209,000 $ (3,037,000) Cost to Provide Service $ 59,630,000 $ 72,442,000 $ (12,812,000)
33
The only difference in the following three scenarios is the amount of water purchased
to replenish the basin.
These costs have a 100% direct pass-through impact to WRD’s replenishment
assessment.
2013 -14 Budget Assumptions
34
$298 $283 $268Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 326,100 af 21,000 af 16,000 af
Water Costs $41.38 $37.72 $34.13
Projects, Programs, Admin 15.28 15.28 15.28
Other Supportive Costs 3.77 3.77 3.77
Capital Improvement/Other 8.48 8.48 8.48
Replenishment of Reserves 5.75 5.75 5.75
Less: Other Revenue (2.21) (2.21) (2.21)
Cost to Provide Service 72.45 68.79 65.20
22.2% 16.0% 9.9%
13-14 Draft Budget Scenarios (in millions)
35
Scenario 1 – 26,100 acre-feet of Replenishment Water Upper Limit
If the Board of Directors chooses to increase replenishment water purchases from the current 2,180 acre-feet to the long term average of 21,000 acre-feet plus 5,100 acre-feet of make up water, the assessment would increase from $244.00 to $298.00 in fiscal year 2013-14; an increase of $54.00 or 22.2%
2013 -14 Draft Budget
36
Scenario 2 – 21,000 acre-feet of Replenishment Water
If the Board of Directors chooses to increase replenishment water purchases from the current 2,180 acre-feet to the long term average of 21,000 acre-feet, the assessment would increase from $244.00 to $283.00 in fiscal year 2013-14; an increase of $39.00 or 16.0%
2013 -14 Draft Budget
37
Scenario 3 – 16,000 acre-feet of Replenishment Water
If the Board of Directors chooses to increase replenishment water purchases from the current 2,180 acre-feet to 16,000 acre-feet, the assessment would increase from $244.00 to $268.00 in fiscal year 2013-14; an increase of $24.00 or 9.9%
2013 -14 Draft Budget
Quantity (AF) Total Cost
Spreading - Tier 1 Untreated Imported 26,100 $ 19,125,900
Spreading – Recycled 50,000 $ 2,000,000
Alamitos Barrier – Imported 2,500 $ 2,529,685
Alamitos Barrier – Recycled 1,600 $ 100,000
Dominguez Barrier – Imported 3,250 $ 3,720,633
Dominguez Barrier – Recycled 3,250 $ 2,790,125
West Coast Barrier – Imported 0 $ 283,341
West Coast Barrier – Recycled 15,000 $ 10,830,000
In-Lieu MWD Member 0 $ 0
In-Lieu WBMWD Customer 0 $ 0 TOTAL 96,600 $ 41,379,684
13-14 Quantity and Cost of Replenishment Water
Scenario 1 – Spreading Water – 26,100 $19,125,900
Scenario 2 – Spreading Water – 21,000 $15,464,100
Scenario 3 – Spreading Water – 16,000 $11,874,100
39
$298 $283 $268Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 326,100 af 21,000 af 16,000 af
Water Costs $41.38 $37.72 $34.13
Projects, Programs, Admin 15.28 15.28 15.28
Other Supportive Costs 3.77 3.77 3.77
Capital Improvement/Other 8.48 8.48 8.48
Replenishment of Reserves 5.75 5.75 5.75
Less: Other Revenue (2.21) (2.21) (2.21)
Cost to Provide Service 72.45 68.79 65.20
22.2% 16.0% 9.9%
13-14 Draft Budget Scenarios (in millions)
40
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationWater Conservation
Professional Services – Legal fees
Other Expenses – Conservationpartnerships and outreach, ECO gardener program, distributionmaterials
Other General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – Grants and sponsorship costs re-allocated to other non-operating expenses and offset against non-replenishment assessment revenue.
[1] [2] [3]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 3,000 3,000 0
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 653,000 524,000 (129,000)
Other General & Administrative 377,000 260,000 (117,000)
Total $ 1,033,000 $ 787,000 (246,000)
41
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationLeo J. Vander Lans Advanced
Water Treatment Facility
Professional Services – Primarilythe District’s operating contractwith the Long Beach Water Department.
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Capital costs for replacement of ultra-violet lamp, reverse osmosis membranes and microfiltration membrane replacement costs (amortized over a 5 year period)
Other Expenses – Residual surcharge fee
Other General & Administrative – Staff labor costs
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 1,636,000
1,591,000 (45,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 514,000
525,000 11,000
Other Expenses 11,000 9,000 (2,000)
Other General & Administrative 326,000
355,000 29,000
Total $ 2,486,000 $
2,480,000 (6,000)
42
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationGoldsworthy Desalter
Professional Services – Primarilythe District’s operating contract with the City of Torrance
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Cost for chemicals, and other capital replacementcosts (amortized over a 5 year period) and general repairs
Other Expenses – Electricity costs
Other General & Administrative Costs – Residual surcharge fees and staff labor costs
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 295,000 267,000 (28,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 437,000 370,000 (67,000)
Other Expenses 307,000 316,000 9,000
Other General & Administrative 198,000 255,000 57,000
Total $ 1,237,000 $ 1,208,000 (29,000)
43
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationMontebello Forebay Recycled Water
Professional Services – Recycled Water Research SAT and labanalysis costs for regulatorycompliance
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Costs for general maintenance
Other Expenses – Primarily related to WateReuse Association and Research Foundation costs
Other General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
[1] [2] [3]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 300,000 325,000 25,000
R&M / Materials / Equipment 20,000 32,000 12,000
Other Expenses 52,000 48,000 (4,000)
Other General & Administrative 258,000 196,000 (62,000)
Total $ 630,000 $ 601,000 (29,000)
44
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 1,086,000 481,000 (605,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 63,000 12,000 (51,000)
Other General & Administrative 281,000 414,000 133,000
Total $ 1,430,000 $ 907,000 (523,000)
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationGroundwater Resource Planning
Professional Services – Legal andlegislative consulting fees
Other General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – Completion of the Groundwater Basins Master Plan
45
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationWater Quality Improvement Program
Professional Services – Cost/benefit/risk analysis, legal fees
Other Expenses – Majority related to Water Research Foundation fees
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – Increase of $62,000 is primarily due to an increase in legal fees and a reallocation of staff labor costs
[1] [2] [3]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 60,000 93,000 33,000
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 11,000 11,000
Other Expenses 82,000 74,000 (8,000)
Other General & Administrative 148,000 175,000 27,000
Total $ 290,000 $ 352,000 62,000
46
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationGeographic Information Systems (GIS)
Professional Services – DatabaseSystem Consultant and GIS system maintenance and enhancements
Other Expenses – Softwarelicenses
General & AdministrativeCosts – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – The decrease of $74,000 is primarily due to (a) a decrease in database systems consultant costs and (b) an increase in staff labor costs due to a reallocation of staff time to GIS
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 200,000 20,000
(180,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 28,000 26,000
(2,000)
Other General & Administrative 88,000 196,000 108,000
Total $ 316,000 $ 242,000
(74,000)
47
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationRegional Groundwater Monitoring Program
Professional Services – Testingand laboratory fees
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Costs for datalogger and miscellaneous equipment costs
Other Expenses – State WaterResources Control Board fees, field operations facility lease fees
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – This program’s staff labor costs have decreased due to reallocation of staff time to other projects or programs
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 545,000 578,000 33,000
R&M / Materials / Equipment 55,000 58,000 3,000
Other Expenses 99,000 146,000 47,000
Other General & Administrative 345,000 261,000 (84,000)
Total $ 1,044,000 $ 1,042,000 (2,000)
48
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 104,000 104,000 0
R&M / Materials / Equipment 2,000 2,000 0
Other Expenses 10,000 9,000 (1,000)
Other General & Administrative 0 0 0
Total $ 116,000 $ 115,000 (1,000)
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationSafe Drinking Water Program
Professional Services – Planningand design fees
49
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 100,000 100,000 0
R&M / Materials / Equipment 11,000 11,000 0
Other Expenses 22,000 15,000 (7,000)
Other General & Administrative 120,000 116,000 (4,000)
Total $ 252,000 $ 242,000 (10,000)
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationDominguez Gap Barrier Recycled Water
Professional Services – Compliance monitoring costs
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Costs for datalogger and miscellaneous equipment expenses
Other Expenses – Discharge permits
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
50
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationReplenishment Operations
Professional Services – Consultant fees
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Storm water andreplenishment water monitoringequipment
Other Expenses – Variousassociation fees (i.e., NGWA,GRAC, SGVPA, etc.)
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – District postponed several joint projects with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works in an effort to minimize impact to the replenishment assessment
[1] [2] [3] [2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 405,000 28,000 (377,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 34,000 24,000 (10,000)
Other Expenses 45,000 43,000 (2,000)
Other General & Administrative 384,000 477,000 93,000
Total $ 868,000 $ 571,000 (297,000)
51
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationHydrogeology Program
Professional Services – USGS Modeling and GeoChemistry andStratigraphy consultant fees
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Modeling software
Other Expenses – Variousassociation fees (i.e., CaliforniaGroundwater Coalition, Alliance for Water Efficiency, etc.), and costs associated with the Engineering Survey and Report
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – The District has a decrease in costs associated with the Salt/Nutrient Management Plan as well as laboratory costs for well testing
[1] [2] [3]
[2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 653,000 525,000 (227,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 32,000 17,000 (15,000) Other Expenses 61,000 65,000 4,000 Other General & Administrative 275,000 187,000 (88,000)
Total $ 1,021,000 $ 794,000 (326,000)
52
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationGroundwater Reliability Improvement Program
Professional Services – Legislative consulting fees for State and Federal funding purposes
Other Expenses – Primarilymiscellaneous expenses
Change from prior year – The District will be funding the majority of the costs from the 2011 Certificate of Participation.
[1] [2] [3]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 500,000 300,000 (200,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 6,000 10,000 4,000
Other General & Administrative 0 0 0
Total $ 506,000 $ 310,000 (196,000)
53
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationWater Education
Professional Services – Consultingsupport costs and seasonal temporary employee costs
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Computer support expenses
Other Expenses – Educational expenses (i.e., Think Watershed, groundwater tours, Eco Gardener classes, newsletters, printing, seminar and conferences.)
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – The decrease in other expenses due to reduced sponsorship of educational programs. The District reallocated staff labor to other programs
[1] [2] [3]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 84,000 113,000 29,000
R&M / Materials / Equipment 3,000 10,000 7,000
Other Expenses 552,000 399,000 (153,000)
Other General & Administrative 514,000 274,000 (240,000)
Total $ 1,153,000 $ 796,000 (357,000)
54
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationBoard of Directors
Other Expenses – Costs includeallowances and expenses for Board of Directors
Fiscal Year 2009/10 the Board of Directors decreased their travel budget by 10%.
Fiscal Year 2012/13 the Board of Directors decreased their travel budget by 10%.
The Board has also foregone the annual CPI adjustment for fiscal years 2012/13 and 2013/14.
General & Administrative Costs – Director’s compensation
[1] [2] [3] [2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 0 0 0
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 96,000 94,000 (2,000)
Other General & Administrative 270,000 270,000 0
Total $ 366,000 $ 364,000 (2,000)
55
[1] [2] [3] [2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 0 0 0
R&M / Materials / Equipment 0 0 0
Other Expenses 22,000 27,000 5,000
Other General & Administrative 352,000 347,000 (5,000)
Total $ 374,000 $ 373,000 0
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationGeneral Manager
Other Expenses – General costs include communication, transportation and travel
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Professional Services – Costs Include non-litigation expenses forDistrict Counsel, independentfinancial audit, Federally requiredgrant audit (Single Audit), GASB45 required actuarial study.
Repairs Maintenance, Materials,Equipment – Building maintenanceexpenses, technology expenses
Other Expenses – Utility expenses, annual membership fees (i.e., AGWA, AWWA, Water Education Foundation, ACWA, LAFCO, CA Special District Association, etc.), printing costs, property/liability/general insurance costs, software licenses, State and Federal legislative workshop costs.
General & Administrative Costs – Staff labor costs
Change from prior year – The District has re-allocated some professional services costs to Groundwater Resource Planning and GRIP. The District has also re-allocated some staff costs from litigation support to administration.
56
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationAdministration
[1] [2] [3] [2]-[1]
2012/13 2013/14 13/14 Budget Adopted Proposed compared to
EXPENSE CATEGORY Budget Budget 12/13 Budget
Professional Services 935,000 462,000 (473,000)
R&M / Materials / Equipment 274,000 254,000 (20,000)
Other Expenses 639,000 586,000 (53,000)
Other General & Administrative 1,479,000 2,014,000 535,000
Total $ 3,328,000 $ 3,316,000 (12,000)
57
Despite the increase in demands and regulations, the District has cut projects, programs and
administrative costs in both fiscal years 2012-13 and 2013-14 by $1.4 million and $1.9 million respectively,
for a total decrease of over $3.3 million
13-14 Projects, Programs & Administration
Summary By Department 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
General Management General Manager 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hydrogeology Department Chief Hydrogeologist 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Hydrogeologist 1.00 1.00 1.00
Hydrogeologist 2.00 2.00 2.00
Water Quality Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Hydrogeologist 1.00 1.00 1.00
Assistant Hydrogeologist 1.00 1.00 1.00 Engineering Department Chief Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Engineer 3.00 3.00 3.00
Resource Planner 1.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00 1.00
Online Technology and Data Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Analyst - - 2.00 Finance Department Chief Financial Officer 1.00 1.00 1.00
Manager of Finance & Administration 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Accountant 1.00 3.00 3.00
Accountant 2.00 1.00 1.00
Accounting Technician 1.00 - - External Affairs Department Manager of External Affairs 1.00 1.00 1.00
Senior Government Affairs Representative 1.00 2.00 1.00
Senior Public Affairs Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00
Public Affairs Representative 2.00 1.00 1.00
Associate Government Affairs Representative 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Specialist 1.00 1.00 1.00 Administration and Human Resources Deputy Secretary 1.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Support Specialist 2.00 2.00 2.00
Network Administrator 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total 34 34 34
59
13-14 Draft Budget Scenarios (in millions)$298 $283 $268
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 326,100 af 21,000 af 16,000 af
Water Costs $41.38 $37.72 $34.13
Projects, Programs, Admin 15.28 15.28 15.28
Other Supportive Costs 3.77 3.77 3.77
Capital Improvement/Other 8.48 8.48 8.48
Replenishment of Reserves 5.75 5.75 5.75
Less: Other Revenue (2.21) (2.21) (2.21)
Cost to Provide Service 72.45 68.79 65.20
22.2% 16.0% 9.9%
60
Litigation – $2,498,000 budgeted for fiscal year 2013-14
1. Case BS 120643 – City of Cerritos, et al. v. WRD
2. Case BS 128136 – 09 Central and West Basin Storage Motion filed in Central & West Basin Judgment cases (Downey, Cerritos, Signal Hill & CBWMD)
3. Case C786656 – Proposition 218 challenge to Replenishment Assessment
4. Case B226743 appeal to C786656 – WRD et al v. City of Cerritos et al Court of Appeals
5. Case BS 129817 – Central Basin Municipal Water District v. WRD
13-14 Other Supportive CostsLitigation
61
6. Case C786656 – WRD/Central and West Basin Water Replenishment Districts v. Charles Adams
7. Case BS 132202 – Central Basin Municipal Water District v. WRD
8. Case BS464772/773 – WRD v. the Cities (Cities of Downey, Cerritos and Signal Hill; RA Validation Action and RA Motion for Declaratory Relief)
9. Case LACV11-7531VBF(RZx) – Central Basin Municipal Water District v. WRD
10. Case BS 134295 – WRD v. Central Basin Municipal Water District
11. Case BS 134239 – Tesoro
12. Case VC060546 – WRD v. City of Downey
13-14 Other Supportive CostsLitigation
62
13. Case VC060498 – WRD v. City of Cerritos
14. Case VC060496 – WRD v. City of Signal Hill
15. Case VC060499 – WRD v. City of Bellflower
16. Case VC060592 – WRD v. City of Pico Rivera
17. Case 2:11-cv-07531-VBF-RZ – CBMWD v. WRD
18. Case B 235039 – CBMWD v. WRD, et al
19. Case BS 139228 – City of Pico Rivera v. WRD
20. Case BS 139830 – Tesoro v. WRD (Tesoro II)
21. Case BC 493914 – WRD v. Tesoro
13-14 Other Supportive CostsLitigation
63
Cost of Service Report and Public Notices $520,000 – Expenses associated with the Proposition 218 process, including the cost of service report and public notice costs.
Election Expense $750,000 – Mandatory pass-through costs payable to the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters
13-14 Other Supportive Costs
64
$298 $283 $268Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 326,100 af 21,000 af 16,000 af
Water Costs $41.38 $37.72 $34.13
Projects, Programs, Admin 15.28 15.28 15.28
Other Supportive Costs 3.77 3.77 3.77
Capital Improvement/Other 8.48 8.48 8.48
Replenishment of Reserves 5.75 5.75 5.75
Less: Other Revenue (2.21) (2.21) (2.21)
Cost to Provide Service 72.45 68.79 65.20
22.2% 16.0% 9.9%
13-14 Draft Budget Scenarios (in millions)
65
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) RA Share - $50,000
Annual Debt Service
2004 Revenue Certificates of Participation $1,526,000
2008 Revenue Certificates of Participation $2,105,000
2011 Revenue Certificates of Participation $5,206,000
13-14 Capital Improvement Costs/Other
66
Annually, the District receives approximately $400,000 in Property Tax Revenue. This is independent of the annual Replenishment Assessment and is used primarily as an offset for specifically designated expenses:
Grant and Sponsorship Program $119,500Chamber Memberships and Dues $45,000Water Education Expenses $43,000Administrative Expenses $31,000
13-14 Capital Improvement Costs/Other
2012/13
Item Description Division Budget ARC Walk for Independence Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 South Bay Latino Chamber of Commerce Annual Conference 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 Tree People Membership 1,2,3,4,5 $ 1,000 CORO Water Luncheon Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 Cabrillo Marine Aquarium Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 1,000 Sanitation Districts Annual Earth Day Event Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 10,000 Friends of the Los Angeles River Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 1,500 Heal The Bay Annual Conference 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 Public Officials for Water and Environment (POWER) Annual Conference 1,2,3,4,5 $ 1,500 South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) Annual General Assembly 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 International Trade Education Program, Inc. Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 1,500 California Foundation Environment and the Economy Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 2,500 Los Angeles County Education Foundation Sponsorship 1,2,3,4,5 $ 5,000 Miscellaneous $ 3,000
SUBTOTAL $ 39,500
Board Sponsorships and Grants – $15,000 per Director
Regional Sponsorships - $39,500 (see below)
13-14 Projects, Programs & AdministrationWater Conservation
68
Cash Reserves
69
California Water Code §60290 – “The district may establish an annual reserve fund in an amount not to exceed ten million dollars ($10,000,000) commencing with the 2000-01 fiscal year. The maximum allowable reserve fund may be adjusted annually commencing with the 2001-02 fiscal year to reflect the percentage increases or decreases in the blended cost of water from district supply sources”
Cash Reserves
70$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
Unrestricted6741000 OPEB $2,954,000
Cal Trans Trust $5,673,000
Debt Service $14,908,000
Restricted Capital Projects $58,121,000
Water Purchase Reserve $13,717,000
WRD Funds as of March 31, 2013March 31, 2013 Cash and Investments
Unrestricted Restricted
71
California Water Code §60291 – “The limitation on the reserve established in §60290 does not apply to the unexpended balance of any appropriated funds in a capital improvement project construction account established to pay the cost of a project or projects under construction”
Cash Reserves
72
California Water Code §60328.1 – “The district shall apply the estimated fiscal year end balance in excess of the amount permitted in §60290 to a replenishment assessment rate reduction or to the purchase of water in the succeeding fiscal year”
In fiscal year 10-11, WRD utilized $8.27 million to lessen the impact of moving from seasonal spreading water to more expensive Tier 1 Water
In fiscal year 11-12, WRD continued the use of the Water Purchase Carryover Fund by using $10.0 million to help stabilize the RA as part of the five-year scenario developed with stakeholder input during the budget process
Cash Reserves
73
In fiscal year 12-13, WRD continued the use of the Water Purchase Carryover Fund by using an additional $3.0 million to help stabilize the RA as part of the five-year scenario developed with stakeholder input during the budget process last year
In total $21.27 million of the Water Purchase Carryover Fund has been utilized for rate stabilization. This funding is no longer
available for make up water purchases.
Cash Reserves
74
California Water Code §60328.1 – “The district shall apply the estimated fiscal year end balance in excess of the amount permitted in §60290 to a replenishment assessment rate reduction or to the purchase of water in the succeeding fiscal year”
In 2011 from June to August, WRD purchased 19,287 acre-feet of “fire sale” water at $499 per acre-foot (regularly $638 per acre-foot). This resulted in a cash outlay of $9.6 million from the Water Purchase Carryover Fund. Additionally, the District purchased an additional 18,028 acre-feet at a melded rate of $613 per acre foot. As a result 37,315 acre-feet were purchased in 10 months for a total of $20.6 million.
WRD collects funds over a 12-month period of time. If not for the Water Purchase Carryover Fund, WRD could not have had the cash flow to purchase such a large amount of “fire sale” water.
Cash Reserves
75
California State Auditor, Bureau of State AuditsIn its May 2002 report (page 18) the California State Auditor wrote, “The district projects that it will have a reserve fund balance of slightly more than $6 million at June 30, 2002, a level that may pose a threat to the district’s ability to maintain the current quantity of groundwater in the basins.”
This reserve level was considered to be the minimum by the State Auditor a decade ago and does not take into account the significant increase in the cost of water over the last 10 years.
Cash Reserves
76
Water Purchase Carryover
77
13-14 Draft BudgetWater Purchase Carryover (in af)
[1] [2] [1]+[2]=[3] [4] [3]-[4]
Actual
Year Budgeted Carryover Subtotal Purchased Difference
2003-04 35,600 - 35,600 27,520 8,080
2004-05 29,895 8,080 37,975 25,145 12,830
2005-06 27,600 12,830 40,430 33,229 7,201
2006-07 21,000 7,201 28,201 40,214 (12,013)
2007-08 21,000 (12,013) 8,987 - 8,987
2008-09 21,000 8,987 29,987 - 29,987
2009-10 21,000 29,987 50,987 26,286 24,701
2010-11 21,000 24,701 45,701 37,315 8,386
2011-12 21,000 8,386 29,386 - 29,386
2012-13 21,000 29,386 50,386 - 50,386
78
13-14 Draft BudgetWater Purchase Carryover
Total Imported Spreading Water Carryover FY 13-14 (af) 50,386Melded Rate per acre-foot1 $ 718Total Amount for Spreading Water owed the Basin 2013-14 $36,117,148
1 Melded RateMWD Untreated Tier 1 – Spreading ($/af) $593MWD RTS ($/af) $31CBMWD Administrative Surcharge ($/af) $94Total $ 718
79$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
Unrestricted6741000 OPEB $2,954,000
Cal Trans Trust $5,673,000
Debt Service $14,908,000
Restricted Capital Projects $58,121,000
Water Purchase Reserve $13,717,000
WRD Funds as of March 31, 2013March 31, 2013 Cash and Investments
Unrestricted Restricted
80
13-14 Draft BudgetWater Purchase Carryover
Amount of Water Purchase Carryover funds available $13,717,000
Amount of payment by Tesoro per court order $948,000
$14,665,000
Total amount for water owed the Basin as of 2013-14 <$36,117,148>
Amount of shortfall to purchase make-up water <$21,452,148>
Total amount of non-payment by litigant parties <$18,857,000>
$- $
5 $5
$7
$
7
$11
$
11
$11
$
11
$1
4
$1
4
$1
4
$1
4
$3
7
$3
7
$3
8
$4
0
$4
2
$4
4 $6
2
$8
6
$9
0
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700 19
90-9
1
1992
-93
1994
-95
1996
-97
1998
-99
2000
-01
2002
-03
2004
-05
2006
-07
2008
-09
2010
-11
CBMWD Surcharge
MWD Water Rate
WRD has Experienced Significant Water Cost Increases
81
Transition from Seasonal Spreading Water to Tier 1 Water in 2010-11
(per TAC recommendation)
*
*Central Basin Municipal Water District surcharge calculation does not include $388,800 annual service charge
CBMWD Historic Administrative Surchargeon Replenishment Water
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
$100
1991/92CBMWD begins charging
$5/acre-foot administrative surcharge on spreading
water
1992 to PresentCBMWD administrative
surcharge increases from $5/af to $90/af
82
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 $-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
83
2003MWD eliminates Meter Charges
CBMWD keeps meter-based charge and
renames it Water Service Charge
Between 2008 to 2012CBMWD Water Service
Charge to WRD increases from $74,400/year to
$372,600/year – an increase of 400%
CBMWD Water Service Charge
8484
ImportedWater Rate
$967/AF
WRD RA$244/AF
$967/AF
IMPORTED WATER GROUNDWATER
CURRENT cost difference between groundwater and imported water is approximately $723/AF
Value of Groundwater(CBMWD as of 1/1/13)
$244/AF
8585
ImportedWater Rate
$967/AF
WRD RA$244/AF
$1,042/AF
IMPORTED WATER GROUNDWATER
FUTURE cost difference between groundwater and imported water is approximately $774/AF
Value of Groundwater(Proposed CBMWD as of 1/1/14)
$268/AF
$75 Increase
$24 Increase
87
WRD Efforts to Reduce Water Costs
• Develop lower cost sources of imported spreading water working with pumpers that are also MWD member agencies
• New agreement with L.A. County Sanitation Districts to purchase and utilize lower cost recycled water to offset demand for more expensive imported water
• Developing other replenishment programs such as pressure-area in-lieu replenishment (Long Beach Program)
88
• Ad Hoc Budget Committee recommends the Board of Directors approve Scenario 3; a 9.9% increase over the current year with a corresponding replenishment assessment of $268 per acre-foot
• The District’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) also recommends the Board of Directors approve Scenario 3
Recommendations
This presentation can be found at www.wrd.org
Top Related