Lukins Brothers Water Co., Inc./AL# 43/RSK/KOK/DLW/RHG

Resolution W-4886DRAFTOctober 6, 2011

Lukins Brothers Water Co., Inc./AL# 43/RSK/KOK/DLW/RHG

STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND g. BROWN JR., Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

August 30, 2011 Draft Resolution W-4886 Agenda ID # 10655

TO: All Interested Persons

Enclosed is draft Resolution W-4886 of the Division of Water and Audits entitled Resolution granting Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. authority to borrow $2,000,000, from financial institutions; to encumber its assets in connection with the loan; and to institute a surcharge to pay off the loan. Draft Resolution W-4886 will be on the Commission’s October 6, 2011 agenda. The Commission may act then on this resolution or it may postpone action until later.

When the Commission acts on a draft resolution, the Commission may adopt all or part of the draft resolution, as written, or amend or modify the draft resolution; or the Commission may set the draft resolution aside and prepare a different resolution. Only when the Commission acts does the resolution become binding.

Interested persons may submit comments on draft Resolution W-4886. An original of the comments, with a certificate of service, should be submitted to:

Division of Water and Audits, Third Floor

Attention: Ramon Go

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Interested persons must serve a written or electronic copy of their comments on the utility on the same date that the comments are submitted to the Division of Water and Audits. Interested persons may submit comments on or before September 19, 2011.

Comments should focus on factual, legal, or technical errors or policy issues in the draft resolution.

Persons interested in receiving comments submitted to the Division of Water and Audits may write to Ramon Go, email him at , or telephone him at (415) 703-1350.

/s/ RAMI S. KAHLON

Rami S. Kahlon, Director

Division of Water and Audits

Enclosures: Draft Resolution W-4886

Certificate of Service

Service List

1

Resolution W-4886DRAFTOctober 6, 2011

Lukins Brothers Water Co., Inc./AL# 43/RSK/KOK/DLW/RHG

WATER/RSK/KOK/DLW/RHG

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DIVISION OF WATER AND AUDITS RESOLUTION W-4886

UTILITY AUDIT, FINANCE AND October 6, 2011

COMPLIANCE BRANCH

RESOLUTION

RESOLUTION W-4886. RESOLUTION GRANTING LUKINS BROTHERS WATER COMPANY, INC. AUTHORITY TO BORROW $2,000,000, FROM FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS; TO ENCUMBER ITS ASSETS IN CONNECTION WITH THE LOAN; AND TO INSTITUTE A SURCHARGE TO PAY OFF THE LOAN.

By Advice Letter No. 43 filed on February 24, 2011.

Summary

This Resolution grants Lukins Brothers Water Company, Inc. (LBWC) the authority requested in its Advice Letter (AL) 43.

NGWC requests authority, pursuant to §§ 816 through 851 of the Public Utilities Code, to:[1]

1. Borrow $2,000,000, from La Quinta Capital, LLC (LQC) or other financial institutions;
2. Use the loan proceeds to finance any loan issuance costs and Phase 1 and part of Phase 2 of its construction project establishing new water mains and fire flow for its currently inadequate system;
3. Establish a surcharge to make payments of principal and interest on the loan and accumulate a sinking fund reserve equal to one year’s debt service; and
4. Encumber utility assets in connection with the loan.

Background

LBWC, a California corporation, is a Class C water utility subject to the jurisdiction of this Commission. LBWC provides water service to approximately 933 flat-rate connections and 20 metered residential customers. By written agreement, LBWC also provides public fire protection water service to 13 fire hydrants. LBWC’s service territory is in the Lukins Brothers subdivision, totally within the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) in El Dorado County. Two other water utilities, the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) and the Tahoe Keys Homeowners Association serve water to the remainder of the City.

LBWC’s water system currently includes approximately 400 feet of two-inch water mains, 48,000 feet of four-inch mains, 7,600 feet of 6-inch mains, and 1,300 feet of 8-inch mains. According to LBWC, the mains and wells are almost fully depreciated and some parts of the system cannot carry sufficient water for adequate fire flow because the mains are too small. LBWC asserts that its system does not meet the current fire code standards because, among other things, it does not have sufficient hydrants in its service area.

Beginning in the 1940’s, LBWC served seasonal and annual residents in the Lukins Brothers subdivision. In 1953, LBWC used two wells to provide water to 20 customers through two-inch and four-inch mains. In 1965, as the population increased, the City was incorporated, which resulted in the inclusion of LBWC’s service area. In 1974, STPUD started providing water to the rest of the City, which consisted of over 16,000 residences and 660 business outfits.

In 2006, STPUD considered buying LBWC and commissioned a study by Brown & Caldwell Engineering. In its engineering report of August, 2006, Brown & Caldwell Engineering estimated a cost of $18.4 million to upgrade LBWC’s system to state, local, and STPUD standards. The Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) rating of fire protection for part of LBWC’s service area is a 9/10, the lowest rating for fire safety.[2] The low rating was given because there were not enough hydrants and the mains were too small to carry adequate flow for fire fighting.

On June 24, 2007, the Angora fire, ignited by an illegal campfire, burned 3,100 acres of land and destroyed 254 homes in and around the City. The fire did not come into LBWC’s service area, but the City, local fire agencies, customers and LBWC saw the need to improve LBWC’s system so that, among other things, the system would provide adequate fire flow. However, LBWC claims it did not have the funds to invest nor were there any grants available to it for its fire protection improvements.

LBWC intended to get private loans for a series of construction projects to improve its system. Because a private or public lender would require plans and cost estimates for the improvements before lending money, LBWC solicited proposals for an engineering design of its water system rehabilitation, including the replacement of its 12th St. water main.

On July, 2008, a consortium of local firms, Haen Engineering and c2me Engineering, submitted a proposal for the engineering services. For the sum of $169,840, they proposed to do a preliminary design for the overall system rehabilitation and a detailed design of the 12th St. main replacement. On April 29, 2008, LBWC filed a Draft Advice Letter seeking among other things, approval to implement a surcharge to fund the engineering study.

On November 12, 2008, the City filed a complaint with the Commission against LBWC, Case (C.) 08-11-013. In its complaint, the City alleged that LBWC created a severe hazard to life, property and the public safety, which required immediate action.

In response to LBWC’s Draft Advice Letter filed April 29, 2008, the Commission authorized LBWC to impose a System Improvement Charge (SIC) of $169,840 to fund the engineering design of LBWC’s system rehabilitation and the 12th St. main replacement.[3] The Commission indicated that the rehabilitation of LBWC’s system was urgently needed and the SIC was an appropriate method to fund the planning for the system rehabilitation. The Commission noted that LBWC could not afford additional investment at that time. The charge to be levied on LBWC’s customers was based on meter size and flat rate.

The SIC authorized in Res. W-4726 was for the preliminary engineering and design of the projects which was expected to take several years to complete. The Commission specified that after the preliminary design phase, additional SIC or other funding mechanisms would be needed for each phase of the project.

In conjunction with the SIC authorization, the Commission required LBWC, among other things, to:

1. Establish and maintain a separate bank account into which all deposits of the SIC surcharges and disbursements were to be made. The Commission ordered that withdrawals from the account be used only for infrastructure improvements and be booked as contributions.
2. Deposit all SIC surcharges within 30 days of collection with a fiscal agent.
3. Establish and maintain a separate account into which all billed SIC revenue and interest was to be recorded and reduced by the withdrawal of monies used to design infrastructure and any fees for the trust account.
4. Within 90 days after completion of the preliminary engineering design, submit to the Commission’s Division of Water and Audits (DWA), a 20-year Proposed System Improvement Plan (PSIP) for improvements to its system.
5. Within 15 days of completion of the PSIP, schedule public meetings with customers to discuss their willingness to fund each phase of the plan.

By AL 40, that became effective December 21, 2008, LBWC imposed the SIC charge on its flat-rate and metered service customers.[4] By AL 41, that became effective October 27, 2009, LBWC terminated the SIC.

LBWC deposited its SIC surcharge collections in a Plumas Bank checking account, separate from LBWC’s Bank of the West checking account. According to LBWC, there was no formal trust agreement created for handling the SIC surcharge although there were emails between DWA’s staff, LBWC, and the Plumas Bank regarding the terms of the bank account. As of June 30, 2011, LBWC had billed its customers $169,320.51, collected $169,081.92 and had paid $107,881.61 for the engineering study. Based on the foregoing, LBWC should have had approximately $61,200 remaining in the bank account but, as of June 30, 2011, the balance in the Plumas Bank account was only $44,628.26, including a $5,000 deposit in transit.

LBWC is currently reconciling it’s SIC surcharge collection, the bank deposits, and SIC payments to determine and correct any errors. On July 14, 2011, LBWC confirmed, that it mistakenly placed approximately $15,800 of the SIC surcharge collection in its Bank of the West checking account instead of the Plumas Bank checking account. To correct this error, LBWC asserts it will deposit the amount of $15,808.47 to its Plumas Bank checking account. After it deposits the $15,808.47, $763.58 remains unaccounted for from the amounts collected by June 30, 2011, and $1,002.17 remains unaccounted for from the total amount billed.[5]

On May 15, 2009, Haen Engineering and c2me Engineering (Consultants) issued its Draft Design Report (Report) on LBWC’s water system rehabilitation and replacement. The Consultants estimated that the cost to completely rehabilitate LBWC’s water system will be $29,797,939, which will then have a life expectancy of 50 years. In the Report, the Consultants identified the design, administration, and construction of water system requirements of the city, state agencies, including the Commission, the American Water Works Association and the National Fire Protection Association. Attached to the Report was a detailed worksheet showing the Consultant’s proposed 11 phases of construction and their costs, the proposed water system layout and required fire-flows, and the water system pressure distribution. In compliance with Res. W-4726, about the first week of June, 2009, LBWC provided copies of the Report to concerned permitting and regulatory agencies, including the Commission.

On July 2, 2009, LBWC entered into a Stipulation Agreement with the City. Due to the challenges of obtaining funding necessary to construct and complete system improvements and upgrades, and the short-term need to address critical fire hazard areas and conditions, the City stipulated the following priorities:

Priority No. 1 – Master Planning for the entire LBWC system

Priority No. 2 – Design for the 12th St. Waterline (Phase 1)

Priority No. 3 – Phase 1 construction

Priority No. 4 – Design for James Avenue, Eloise Avenue and Dunlap

Drive Loop (Phase 2)

Priority No. 5 – Phase 2 construction

Priority No. 6 – Design for remainder of LBWC system including

All required fire hydrants (Phase 3)

Priority No. 7 – Phase 3 construction

The Stipulation Agreement requires LBWC to use its best efforts to find funding and proceed with the improvements expeditiously in accordance with the priority list that emphasized Phases 1 and 2 identified in the Report.

On July 14, 2009, LBWC held a public meeting to discuss the Report. In attendance were approximately 25 customers and 25 persons from agencies concerned with the proposed project, including the staff from DWA and the Commission’s Public Advisor’s Office. The City Manager gave a brief talk regarding fire hazards in the area, finding ways to fund segments of the project, and the need to prevent a rate shock to LBWC’s customers. The Consultants went into detail about the construction and the cost of each phase. LBWC explained that Phase 1 of the project would be the backbone of the system and would provide immediate relief for many of the system’s problems. Customer concerns focused on costs and the surcharge to be imposed on ratepayers. The City, the local fire agencies, customers and LBWC all decided that they want the system to be improved. In particular, the City requested implementation of the most critical fire protection upgrades as soon as possible.

In D.09-07-025, dated July 15, 2009, the Commission dismissed C.08-11-013, upon receiving a joint request for withdrawal from the City and LBWC.

On September 15, 2009, the Consultants issued a supplement to its Report to correct minor errors in its designs; identify a strategy to maximize fire-flow protection for residential customers; clarify that while LBWC’s service area had been given a 9/10 ISO rating, the entire City has a Class 5 ISO rating; and respond to written comments received from three agencies regarding minimum fire-flow, current and proposed use of existing interties, combined demand of maximum day use and required fire-flows, and City requirements, permits and fees.

1. Haen Engineering and c2me Engineering Recommendations

As expected, the Consultants indicated that LBWC’s existing distribution system is undersized and provides minimal fire protection. While LBWC’s ratepayers enjoy safe “non-chlorinated” well water, their fire protection system is virtually nil and the pressure at some locations is less than satisfactory. Due to its 4-inch mains, LBWC’s system is unable to provide adequate fire-flow. Modern municipal hydrants are not effective unless connected to a minimum 6-inch line.

The Consultants divided the rehabilitation and replacement of LBWC’s water system into 11 construction phases. Phasing identifies individual projects that are constructible in terms of direct impacts, such as traffic circulation and the necessity to maintain water service. The Consultants designed the rehabilitation starting with larger diameter transmission mains connecting sources, followed by smaller diameter distribution main loops. This phasing scheme is intended to maximize the number of customers benefiting from increased service pressure early in the system replacement process.

The Consultants indicated that the fire hydrant and valve installation phasing will be built consistent with the pipeline construction phasing. In a given construction phase, a fire hydrant will be provided at the end of an installed section of pipe to provide the ability to “blow-off” water for disinfection and flushing. As a pipeline segment crosses through an intersection where future phases will be joined at a tee or cross fitting, valves matching the future pipeline diameter will be provided so that future construction can proceed without water service outages. Valves will be provided at intersections and at 800-foot intervals. Due to the looped nature of the distribution system, three valve groups will be provided at intersections. This gives the ability to isolate a given block with a four valve closure and any given street can be fed from two directions.

The Consultants identified the 12th St. Waterline Project as the first construction phase. This project will connect both LBWC’s source locations with a 12-inch transmission main. The Consultant projects that the 12th St. Waterline Project will be one of the most challenging construction phases in the district due to the many existing utilities. A City storm drainage system currently runs down 12th Street. The existing sewer is generally near a street’s center, however there are sewer services at regular intervals which must drain by gravity. There is a ten-foot sanitary separation preferred between the sewer and storm drains and the water system. The City also requested avoidance of the street shoulder where future storm drain drop inlets may be located.

During construction, LBWC will maintain customer water service at all times, excepting brief scheduled local shutdowns. LBWC will construct the new system in parallel with the old system from an initial valved intertie. During installation of the new pipeline, the contractor will run new water service lines up to existing customer connection points at the property line. The pipeline will be disinfected, pressure tested, bacteriologically tested, and flushed prior to swapping service connections over to the new water line. Finally, when all customers have been connected to the new system, LBWC will take the existing main out of service and abandon it in place.