The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutO.B. 3 WATER WORKSHOP 02-06-89 · .· . D/~TE: FEBRU/~RY- 1, 1989 . · . .. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: .SUBJECT WIL~I/~MA. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER W~TER WORKSHOP The City Council directed that this matter be placed on the agenda in order that it could act on the recommendations set forth on page two of the January 13, 1989 staff report (copy attached) regarding the water system. WAH/vw DARE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Inter- Corn ' JANUARY 13, 1989 . . · . HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WILLIAM.A. HUSTON, CiTY MANAGER JANUARY 16, 1989 WATER WORKSHOP The City Council will be conducting a workshop to review the status of water system capital improvement projects, water rates and the debt surcharge. Staff will be making a presentation on the history of water rates since the City acquired the water system in 1980 and the status of the 1988-89 water system capital improvements budget. Attached are reports from Ron Nault and Bob Ledendecker which discuss these items. It is important to note in Mr. Nault's report that the City's current water rates are less than average of other cities and water districts in Orange County and that the City's rates..are within the parameters established by the Montgomery Engineering Water Rate Study. As the City Council will recall, Montgome.,ry was retained in 1983 to develol~' a method for establishing water-rates using accepted engineering practices.. Mr. Ledendecker'~' report indicates that water system's storage capacities need to be evaluated further.. The 1983 Boyle Engineering study emphasized the need to replace water main lines due to fire flow and {rater pressure considerations. The City has replaced these essential facilities and needs now to focus on its water storage ~acilities. This can be best accomplished through a consultant engineering firm which would analyze the condition of present storage facilities, the timing and cost of any needed repairs and the cost/benefit of additional storage facilities. This analysis would take 6-8 months to complete. Mr. Nault's report includes a cash flow analysis of the surcharge fund. The analysis indicates that the current surcharge .generates sufficient revenue to cover the Tustin Water Works bond principal payment in 1989-90. Thereafter, there would be sufficient accumulated revenue to pay the remaining balance due to the General Fund by 1992-93. Beginning after October 1993, the 1983 lease revenue bonds could be redeemed. At this point, it is too early to assess whether it would be to the City's economic advantage to redeem these bonds beginning .in 1993. It should be anticipated that any major repairs and/or construction of additional storage facilities will be expensive. Staff will be recommending that any decisions regarding water rates' and the debt surcharge be deferred until after the water storage facilities engineering analysis is completed. At that time the City Council could decide the direction .it wants to pursue with regard to any required capital expenditures for storage facilities and the mosi cost/effective means of financing the cost. JANUARY 16, 1989 WATER WORKSHOP WILLIAM A. HUSTON PAGE TWO Currently, water system capital improvements.are funded with operating' ihcome. The bi-monthly water' bill includes fixed charges and the commodity (consumption). rate. The fixed Charges (service and demand) cover the cost of reading meters and billing (service charge), and capital improvements (demand charge). Based upon the Montgomery rate study, the demand charge should cover 75% of capital improvement costs, and commodity the balance of 25 percent. Whether the demand fixed charge and the commodity rate will continue to generate sufficient annual income for capital improvement projects depends upon the cost of any improvements determined to be necessary through the storage facilities engineering analysis. · An option that could be considered by the City Council for financing capital improvements is the surcharge fund. Additional bonds could be issued by utilizing the 1983 lease revenue bond mechanism. This would entail the City's Water Corporation issuing additional bonds with the City pledging surc. harge income to cover the annual principal and interest payments. The proceeds of the bond issue would be allocated for capital improvement projects. Whether this approach is economically feasible will also depend upon the cost of capital improvement projects identified by the engineering analysis. Which method of financing future capital improvements is best will depend upon policy issues to be decided by the City Council and the cost/benefit of each method. It is staff's recommendation that: ® The City Council direct that an engineering analysis of water storage facilities be prepared by a consultant. 2. Water rates (fixed and consumption) not be adjusted at this time. 3. The surcharge rate not be adjusted at this time. . Upon completion of the water storage engineering analysis, the City Council consider options for financing future water system capital improvements and adjust water rates and/or the surcharge rate accordingly.. WAH: jcs ~ Attachments: City of Tustin Water Service Fact Sheet Tus'tin Water Service Capital Improvement Program Water Rates L~,TE: JANUARY 12, 1989 In, er- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Attached for your review is basic information regarding the water system rate structure. The present rate structure was adopted by the City Council by Resolution 83-7, signed in January, 1983. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, conducted a rate study on the existing rate structure and made the recommendations that are reflected in Resolution 83-7. The MontgomerY study goes into great detail to describe state of the art rate structuring and the report is available for review if members of the Council desire. I've included a two page summary of modern rate structure and analysis taken from the recently' published Orange County Water Rate Survey, prepared by the Municipal Water District of Orange County and the Orange County Water Association. I've also included the survey summary to which I've added information that shows that the City of Tustin water rates compare quite favorably with other agencies in the county. The' next few pages show a rate history starting in 1980, prior to the acquisition, and several pages of calculations which represent the various steps necessary to develop our rates. These calculations all 'follow the guidelines addressed in. the Montgomery study with one exception. The Montgomery study uses a two future year's average cost basis and I used the prior two year's actual and current year's budget to develop the average annual costs. Looking through the various calculations and the summary page you will see that the only change that r~sults from the recalculations is an increase in the demand charge. The demand charge is directly related to the level of annual capital improvement costs, 75% captured through the demand, charge and 25% through the commodity charge. During the last three years we have averaged $700,000 in annual capit'al improvements, more than double the average amount of $258,000, averaged annually during the .first five years we owned the system. As the summary information indicates, the lifeline and all other commodity rates are presently at their appropriate levels. The final spread sheet attached is a five year cash flow analysis of the water debt surcharge fund. This simply shows the."status quo" of the surcharge ~und income and expenses and the .projected payback to the .general f. und. in 1992/93 .... .. *GEORGE A. RAFTELIS and JON D. VanDUSEN Mr. Raftelis is National Director, En- vironmental Group, and Mr. VanDusen is Senior Consultant, both with Arthur Young & Company, Charlotte, Horth Carolina. WITH increased environmental and economic attention focused on the water and wastewater indus- try, the cost of providing these ser- vices has increased dramatically over the past decade. These increased costs have translated into much higher user charges to the utility's customers. Water and wastewater charges, which at one time drew little attention from residential and non- residential customers, have become a more significant part ot' the cus- tomer's budget. In many eom. munities, rates have doubled or tri- pled due to several factors influencing pricing: up~raded and more sophisti- cated treatment systems requiring in- creased operation and maintenance costs; inflation, whiclt has made a sig- nfficant impact on commodities and services affecting utility eperations (chemicals, electricity, salaries, etc.); and requirements to staff treatment opel'at, ions with more qualiRed mana- gers and operators. As a result of these and other factors, politicians and utility managers have been forced to examine water and waste- water user charges and pricing more carefully. Rate comparisons among similar communities are useful in analyzing proposed rate schedules. As part of Arthur Young & Company's water and wastewater cost or' service and rate structure studies, the firm per- forms periodic water and wastewater surveys of major selected cities throughout the ?.mired States. Of the 100 communities and 140 utilities con- tacted in a recent surF. ey, 120 utilities responded. Results of the survey were compiled during the first quar- ter of 1986.. Survey. results present the inside- city rates at various consumption levels based upon the the most com- mon meter used at that level. Rates calculated at monthly usage levels are summarized in Table t. Comparing Rates Comparing water and wastewater rates among con':munities can provide insight into prh, ing policies of the utilities. Care should be taken, how- 'ever, in drawing conclusions from this comparison. Many factors affect the costs to be recovered through water and wastewater pricing and the pric- ing structure. Some o[' the more pre- valent factors that impact pricing are: Geo~'aphic l.:,cation. Geographic location and {opography significantly affect the design and cost of water and wastewater facilities and their opera- tion. In some. areas, pumping and transmission can be major syste~ costs. Water treatment plants located far from the source of supply can have high water supply costs. A waste treatment plant located far from its discharge stream can have high dis- posal costs. Demand. Customer demand plays an important role in sizing water and wastewater faciiities, and therefore impacts rates. Facilities have to be designed to provide for seasonal and hourly demand, as well as potential growth in a system. Peak demand usage may be significantly higher than average, annual usage. As a re- suit, customers may have to pay a higher rate during non-peak periods to have facilities available for use dur- ing peak period~. Resbrt areas' provide a good exam- ple of the fmpact of peak demand water and. wastewater' pricing. Facilities are sized to meet vacation demand and have high costs when computed on an average annual gal- lon basis. Communities that maintain stringent fire protection standards might have relatively 'high peak hour water demands, and therefore incur additional operating and facility costs related to providing fire protection. (Many jurisdictions, however, re- cover ['ire protection costs through charges to either the city's or county's general fund or to special fire districts with taxing authority. In these cases, the water customer base rate can be relieved of recovering the cost td pro- vide fire protection.) Customer Constituency. The types of customers served by a water and wastewater system affect admin- istrative, customer, treat~nent, and transmission costs, tn communities with numerous high volume users, administrative, customer, and trans- mission costs can be relatively low. Factors contributing to this lower rate include: t) more gallons can be con- sumed or discharged per foot of line: 2} fewer meters need to be read and bills prepared; and 3) less administra- tion is involved with delinquencies, disconnects, and customer service. On the other hand, areas with high industrial discharge can incur signifi- cantly more operating and capital costs to: 1) treat and process waste- water: 2) maintain an industrial waste control or pretreatment section; and 3) provide for more expensive meter- ing equipment. Level of Treatment. Effluent qual- ity standards for a wastewater treat- ment plant are influenced by the water quality standard of the dis- charge stream, as well as the ppllu- tan~ that must be treated. The level Table I --- Arithmetic Means of Monthly Water and Wastewater Rates Usage Level Meter Water Wastewater Customer Characteristics Cubic Feet Gallons Size Rate ($) Rate (S) Minimum Charge 0 0 5/8-in. 3.31 3.42 Residential-lifeline Usage 500 3,740 5/8-in. 5.86 5.80 Average Residential Usage 1,000 7,480 5/8-in. 9.41 9.46 Non-Manufacturing Commercial 3,000 22.440 5/8-in. 23.55 24.60 Ught Industrial 50,000 374,000 2-in. 311.14 377.87 Industrial 1,000,000 7,480,000 4.in. 5,313.74 7.067.15 Heavy Industrial 1,500.000 11,220,000 8-in. 7,857.88 10,810.69 _ and type of wastewater treatment in- 'uences facility design and related perating an.d capital costs. Com- munities with tertiary treatment would typically incur greate, r costs than communities served by secon- dary treatment plants. For water treatment, the quaJity of influent water affects treatment'costs. . In many situations, ground water is relatively pollutant free and can be distributed after little treatment. Treatment of sudaee water is typi- cally more complicated, and there- fore more costly. Level of General FUnd Subsidy. Many public water and wastewater systems are or~anizaQonally within a county or municipal government. The county or municipal government often provides administrative se'r- vices that benefit water and waste- water operations. These might include personnel services, purchasing, ad- ministration, accounting, and data processing. If the general fund does not recover sumcient administrative costs from the water and wastewater operations,'a subsidy to these opera- tions could result. On the other hand, over-recovery of administrative costs 'om water and wastewater opera- dons could result in a subsidy to the general ~und. The subsidy coricept could be extended to include subsidiz- ing more than merely the administra- tive costs. Zn the case of water and wastewater authorities, operations are self- contained and no "parent" ernmental body exists to create a sub- sidy situation. Level of Grant Funding. Grant funding from state and Federal agen- cies can be an offset to water and wastewater capital costs and. ulti- mately water and wastewater rates. However, wastewater construction grants are declining as the percent- ages of participation are reduced. Federal water grant funding has al- most disappeared. [n comparing rates, one would think that grant funding would have a neutral impact on all communities re- ceiving grant funds. This is not neces- sarily true, however, since each area may have a different level of projects eligible for funding and some states _ supplement Federal funding with a *.ate match. As a result, the local flare can be significantly different from community to community, and rates will be impacted accordingly. [n the case of grant funding for water projects, some communities have received state water grants or special Federal assistance (FHA, EDA. etc.). Again, the level of water grant funding would impact capital requirements and the level of capital revenue requirements to be recov- rate setting approach adopted by a ered from water customers, community has a significant impact on Age of' the System. Typically, the way costs are distributed among older systems requi~'e more mainte- the consumption levels and classes of nance. In new systems, however, an ...users.. extraordinary amount of mainte-. ' Other Evaluation Criteria. Other nance may be required 'to work out the' "bugs" until the facilities are operating e~ciently. Also, with a new system, significant debt service costs may be required, as compared with older systems where debt has been repaid or the debt is based upon much lower historical dollars. As a result, the age of a system should be evaluated to determine operating and .capital revenue requirements, and the impact on rate comparisons. Infiltration and Inflow Levels. A major problem with many waste- water systems is the level of infiltration and inflow (I/I) present. A high level of factors influencing the comparison of rates are too numerous to mention. These factors relate to levels of effi- ciency, organizatipnal considera- tions, and demographic considera- tions such as availability of labor, compensation scales, and levels of employee training. In summary, care should be taken in drawing conclusions regarding water or wastewater operations or maintenance in a particular commu- nity. Many factors influence water and wastewater pricing. However, comparisons among communities could signal to management that I/I means additional capacity re- quirements and related operating costs. These additional costs translate into higher revenue requirements in the rate base. Rate Setting MethodologT. The methodology used by a community to establish rates influences the level of revenue requirements to be recov- ered through rates and the distribu- tion of costs to classes of water and wastewater customers. It' the "cash needs" approach to rate setting is fol- lowed, cash requirements for utility operations are recovered through the rate base. If the "utility" approach to rate setting is follgwed, accrual reve- nue requirements are recovered through the rates. The major differ- ence between revenue requirements under the two approaches is the han- dling of capital costs. Under the cash needs approach, debt service with re- lated cash requirements and other capital cash outlays are recovered through the rates. Under the utility approach, depreciation and rate of re- turn are recovered through the rates. In a climate of significant grant fund- ing, capital recove:y requirements could be significantly different under the two approaches. Influencing the charges at different consumption levels is the method used to allocate costs to customer classes and related consumption blocks. [fa uniform rate approach is followed, each unit of service (thousand gallons, CCF, etc.) is charged at the same price for ail levels of usage. Under a declining block rate structure, the charge per unit at' ser- vice is lower at the higher usage levels than at the lower usage levels. The inverted block-structure is designed to promote conservation and presents another cost allocation method. Under this approach, unit charges in- crease as consumption increases. The there should be reasons why one community's rates are higher or lower than another's. Analysis into why there is a difference could be helpful in examining the effectiveness at' a water or wastewater operation.~,[]r-1 The preceding article is based upon the 1986 National Water and Westeu~ter Rate Survey published by Arthur Young & Company. The complete report includes details of water and wastewater rates for each utility that responded to the survey, as well as describing the rate structures currently in use' and the dates when. they became effective. For a copy, write to George A. Raftelis, Natiorml Director, En- vironmental Group, Arthur Young & Company, I$00 Independence Plaza, Charlotte, North Carolina 28246. · · · County Studies Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives A study of solid waste disposal al- ternatives has been completed by CH2M Hill for Teton County, Wyo- ming, where the county landfill is fast running out o£ capacity. Teton County · includes portions o£ Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks and has a year-round population of 11.O00. The summer tourist population generates unusuzlly large amounts o£ solid waste, and presents significant prob- lems in planning effective solid waste volume reduction prol~rams. To make things worse, rough terrain and the large amount of Federally-owned lands within the county make siting a new landfill difficult. The consultant evaluated several volume reduction technolo~;ies, in- cluding ~vaste-to-ener~;y, compostin~, recycling, and pyrolysis l incomplete combustion), and compared them to the county's idenufied landfill aiterna- tives. The study found that a landfill was the best option. · · · · · · · · MONTHI_Y FI XED/SERVICE ...l't~.~l~.l~E F I R S T- G(')(") F'LJ F'T ALL L. v c. 60':':' C.".J i :' F (3) 1984--MAY -~5.01 (4) 1987-MAR (1) Tustin Water W,:,rks rates 71'15/80, 1st 300 ,:u tt c, nly b'~iled at ~0'":'6~3 I]:i~;y raised ~his ~o the 1st 600 ,:u -f.t; m ~ ~ .... ('2) Water rate study by ,:,:,risultir~g engineer mc, di'r:Lea ra'i'.e s'l::v'u,::tL...,.'e ~nd kn1'bi~t~d the deb~ ~uK,:har~. (~) Commodity pa~ thru '~ ~u~h,:,Kiz~d Dy Res,:,. (4) Deb~ ~uK,:h~rge redu,:~d D%. Average annual c,"',st ,:,t meter reaciing/biiii~;g .... · . T,:,'~:al N,:,. of meters in 6 billing ,-yules 'per · 13,615 ' year 2::: ............................................. :::; ... ~.'~ .L 3. ~;.1," 3 Montgomery rate Difference ~2.47 ,:: $ 0.07 ) NOTE: Actual ra'ces, are ,:urrently used. M,:,n~:g,:,me;-y 'r'.::~,_.,:-.? L.:F...i r,'.'.':.:::.,;i :: · t h i ~. r e,: a 1 c ut 1 a t i ,:, n ut s i n g t h e M o n t g c, m e r y s t u ci ,.;.- ,"ti e: ~' ~."~ ,:::,,:'t ,:, l ,-, Cl y. Demand chapge ,:al,:ulati,:,n: 'Average annual caDi'tal improvement ,:,::,sts- Total meter ,:apa,:it:¢ units- 6 billing ,:y,:les per year 75% c,f average annual capital 24,548 ,:c, sts captureci · :'~.~ '7 0 ('.), 0,:-)0 $695,767x0.75 ::2 4, ..'j 4 o. $21.26 A," .i; u a 1 ;-' a',': e M,:,n 't g c, me r'v .E:, :l. t :r e r 6'.~ r"~ ,: e -:, · Cust ,:,mer Dema~'~ d o . Met er' Si ze Serv.ic'e C:harge · · ,'. 4" $2.46 m88.50 6" $'.2 · 46 s; 17'7.00 Mul'~iple residential ,-barges: $2.8~-~ b.i.-m,:,nthly per unit Olus $3.54 per mul t'i ~le unlts. Aver age Multiple unit annual wa~ er syst em c,"',s't s=" i 15 ~" 'D fire '- .. 896' m e't er s · x s 3.5,-'-'i. x 6 b i i 1 i n g z.~ = 10,916 units x ':;2.80 x 6' 0iliings = . i2,719 meters x i.;2.47 x 6 15,:i31:5 ,:at~. units x '.:~3.54 x 6 bil Ls.= · ::::, :.:2: :,..' 4 ,. 4.'.'-) ,]5 'l',::,".:ai servi,:e ,:~'~arge revenue Remaining revenue requiremen'u "~3,951, '714-¢ 161 , 746 5,794,433-490, 140 = $A.7145 per 10 0 ,:: u t'..; <~1 ~'~1 I I I I t~l <~1 ~11 I I t~l t~l t~'l I I I I t~l I~1 i-ti q..l OIm O 1,.i c~ I (:DOc:DO I ,, I O I I I - I I I C;.OOO I O cD I cD I ! I I I I I I cD I cD I I I I I OOOO I cD O I CD lCD I I I OO(:D I O OOO I'O ~1 ¢'~10 I I,~ ,.-I I I I 0001,~ I ~ CD I I I OlD(DO I O '~l",cl",cl'[". I O'% I I I I I cD cD cD Im O I I 0 0 010 CD 010 cn ~1~ '1 I I ~0 I co' I1~ I I I I1,~ I I I 010 I I I I .,,,I I .,,.I I I I~1-1 I~1 I I I ' I I I I 0 ,"q O ,cl, ,-.-I cD ,-I CITY OF TUSTIN WATER SERVICE FACT SHEET JANUARY, 1989 No. of Service Connections Population served Average annual water production Average day demand Peak day Peak hour Storage capacity 'oduction capacity 14,000 65,000 13,600 a.f. 11.8 23 47 11.5 25 mg mgd mgd mg mg 18 CFS 35 CFS 72 CFS 38 CFS AVERAGE PRODUCTION AND FLOW BY MONTH JAN A.F. 845 CFS 14 FEB MAR APR MAy JUNE JULY AUG .. 785 915 1036 1345 1380 1510 1510 14 15 17 21 23 25 25 SEPT OCT NOV DEC 1275 1125 935 820 21 18 16 13 af mg mgd cfs acrm foot Amount of water needed to serve family of five for one year. million gallons million gallons per day cubic foot per second 1 cfs = 450 gallons per minute Active ~ells (7) CITY OF TUSTIN WATER.SERVICE SOURCE CAPACITY GROUNDWATER Year Drilled ~om __ Beneta ~ 1976 750 Colombus Tustin 1984 1400 Livingston 1954 550 Pankey 1963 450 Tustin Avenue 1952 700 Walnut Avenue 1930 800 Yorba Street 1962 720 Inactive Wells (7) Newport Avenue 2 Seventeenth #1 2 Seventeenth #2 Prospect Avenue 2-- , Veta ...ain Street Plant Acre ft. / year · 1200 2250 890 725 1120 1280 1160 1926 700 1927 1000 1972 650 1955 850 1958 150 Power Cost af' 63.86 51.48 58.69 51.65 68.74 46.00 49.73 Well #2 1962 .. 1200 Well #3 1972 750 Reason Nitrates Nitrates & TDS Nitrates & TDS (never used) Nitrates Nitrates (projected to be placed back in service in Feb. 1959) Nitrate levels in the Beneta Well currently average 50 mg/1. This exceeds the State maximum contaminant level of 45 mg/1. A blending System. has been installed and low nitrate water from the Colombus Tustin Well is injected into the discharge from Beneta Well, yielding a blended product averaging 35 mg/1, which meets State Standards. This blending system is sampled and monitored daily. .2 These wells are on standby and available for use in extreme emergency. If these wells are used, the public must be notified in writing that they received water which did not meet State Health Department Standards. CITY OF TUSTIN WATER SERVICE SOURCE CAPACITY IMPORTED WATER ImpOrted water is Supplied by the Metropol'itan Water District, through the East Orange County Water District. SOURCE CAPACITY Name Location Gpm AF/year OC 43 Newport Ave. and Walnut 4000 6450 OC 48 ~ Fairhaven and Ethelbee Fairhaven and Prospect Fairhaven and Hewes Rawlings Reservoir Newport Reservoir Total sub-connections 5400 8700 EOCWD Plant 2500 4000 12400 (26 CFS) 19150 OC 48~supplies eight sub-conneCtions, of which Tustin owns kive. The others are owned by Lemon Heights Mutual Water Co., Southern California Water Co., and East Orange County Water District Retail zone. Historically, these three agencies use their connections during unusually hot weather, so the full capacity of OC 48 is not available to Tustin at these times. CITY OF TUSTIN WATER SERVICE COST OF WATER 1987-88 Groundwater 7672.8 AF 58% of supply 104.84 per af $804,416 Imported Water 5621.3 AF 42% of supply 250.00 per af 1,405,325 Less: Basin Equity Credit 181.116 $1,219,209 The Basin Equity Credit is granted by Orange County Water District' to agencies which are unable to produce their 70% groundwater allocation due to water quality problems. This will not be available to Tustin in 1988-89 because the Nitrate Removal Plant is expected to come on line. EOCWD Rate for 1988-89 was reduced to $244.00 per al. Interruptible water credit issued' by MWD is $44.00 per af. Tustin is unable to participate in the interruptible program due to inadequate groundwater production capacity. Interrupti~le credit is granted by MWD to agencies which agree to reduce their purchases at MWD's request. Typically, water agencies place any production capacity which is over their 70% groundwater allocation into the interruptible program. Since the Nitrate Plant should allow Tustin to achieve its 70% allocation, production from any additional wells would allow Tustin to claim a credit on purchased water of $66,000 per well. Additional wells would also greatly improve the reliability of the system. CITY OF TUSTIN WATER SERVICE · . BOOSTER PUMP C~PACITY Main Street Plant Booster #1 40 hp Booster #2 50 hp Booster #3 60 hp Seventeenth St..Plant (inactive) Booster #1 50 hp Simon Ranch Booster Station Booster #1 25 hp Booster #2 25 hp 780 Gpm 995 Gpm !140 Gpm 2915 Gpm i 1280 Gpm 450 Gpm 450 Gpm CITY OF TUSTIN WATER SERVICE · RESERVOIR STORAGE CAPACITY Name Newport Reservoir Foothill Reservoir Simon Ranch Reservoir Rawlings Reservoir Lyttle Reservoir Main Street Reservoir ¥~ar Constructed Capacity 1926 1.25 mg 1959 3.5 mg 1960 1.5 mg 1971 5.0 mg 1977 .16 mg 1926 .~ 18 mg 11.59 mg A recent engineering analysis of Rawlings Reservoir has determined that, due to seismic considerations, the reservoir should not be filled to its full cagacity. When the current repair work is completed, capacity will be about 4.5 mg. In er- Corn DATE: JANUARY 10, 1989 .. TO: WILLIAM HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/WATER DIVISION SUBJECT: TUSTIN WATER SERVICE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM The current Water Service Capital Improvement program provides for expenditures as follows over the next five (5) years: 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 $1,118,900 $ 847,400 $ 622,400 $ 621,500 $ 764,400 Currently budgeted Planned Planned Planned Planned' and an unscheduled list of projects totaling $326,000. Staff is --currently re-evaluating the' entire water distribution system to determine ~ there are any additional mainline facilities that were previously umitted in the Boyle Engineering .inventory, or that have surfaced as problem areas since that original inventory. The current years ('88-'8'9) budget status is recapped as follows: Budget Pro~ ect No. DescriDtion Status Bell Ave./Warner Ave. Loop Completion Anticipated completion date is 6/89 - schedule dependent upon private development. 10 Replacement of obsolete production meters on wells On-going by City staff - completion in 6/89 14 Rehabilitate landscaping at Simon Ranch Reservoir Design completion in late Spring 23 Masonry block wall and gate at 17th St. well site Contract award on 1/16/89 - 24 Foothill Reservoir site retaining walls and landscape/ irrigation Deferring al. 1 site work until extent of required reservoir construction is determined. 25 Modify/upgrade telemetry system Request for proposals to for reservoirs, wells and pumps be solicited in late Spring. USTIN WATER SERVICE'CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ~ANI/ARY 10, 1989 PAGE 2. Budget Proj eot No. 26 27 DescriDtion Drill and construct well and wellhead facility Arroyo 2'"/4" steel water ma~n replacement between Skyline and La Loma Status Site acquisition and design to commence in late Spring 1989 U~der construction 28 Eton Pl., Sussex Pl., Grammercy Under construction Pi:, and Sandhurst Pl. water main replacement westerly of Red Hill 29 Rebecca Ln., Gwen Ave., Lucinda Under design Way and Deborah Dr. water main replacement westerly of Red Hill In addition to the above-mentioned capital projects, staff has been working on the rehabilitation .of two reservoirs, Rawlings and Foothill, which have developed' leaks either within the existing lining or the structure. Rawlings Reservoir has currently been drained and plans/ specifications for repair have been completed and are currently being reviewed. Once the Rawlings Reservoir repairs have been completed (estimated March 1989) and the facility is returned to'service, the Foothill Reservoir will be taken out of service and analyzed for any required repairs. The five-year Water Service Capital Improvement program will most likely require revision once the system's .storage capacities have been re-evaluated. The original Boyle Engineering study evaluated the storage capacity in a very general sense with the major emphasis on mainline replacement. It is anticipated that' this consultant study will take approximately 6-8 months to complete. At the completion of this study, the City will then have adequate information available to determine the cost of the long-term major facility needs of the Water System. The nitrate removal plant is nearing its completion sometime in February. Orange County Water District has indicated its desire to hold a formal ~-~edication ceremony once-the' facility construction is complete and an ~equate operational test period has been completed. The Water District will coordinate this ceremony with the City. BOb Ledendecker Director of Public Works/City Engineer I . ! ! ,I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I I I I I I I I I. . I I I I I I' '" I 4111~e · ! - ! I ' I I I I · I I I I I · I I I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I . I I I · .I I I I J' I ! ! I I I I ! I ! I I Imm I I · ! I I t I I I I I I I . I I I I I · · · · · ! ! ! · · I I I I I I I I I I m