Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Water Master Plan/Financing Plan
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATIO-VCE)V ED FROM 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH AND MADA PA E w THE COUNCIL M MEETING OF RTOFTHE�CORDgT OFFICE OF THE CITY CLEqK"�- CONNIE BROOKyVAY CITYCLEFIK TO: LES JONES, Public Works Director FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: WATER FUND TRANSFERS DATE: MAY 8, 1995 1. $2,500,000 loan to Pier Fund made in 1992. Accrued interest to September 30, 1994 = $558,000. 2. $1,000,000 made in 1987 as a direct advance for water improvements in the Main/Pier Project Area. Accrued interest through September 30, 1994 = $800,144. 3. $138,000 for water improvements made in 1987 for water improvements in Main/Pier Project Area. Accrued interest through September 30, 1994 = $12,075. Repayments have been made in-recent years. 4. $642,000 transferred- to the Gas Tax Fund for a capital project in 1993/94. ROBERT . FRANZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:skd 0012042.01 05/08/95 1:15 PM RECEIVED FROM "rac k G ` AND MADE A PART OF THE R CORK-paA-'T'- THE COUNCIL MEETING OOFFICE OF THE CIT Y CLERK F �S CONNIE ROOKWAY,CITY CLERK For over a year, we on the Water Board have studied the Water Master Plan. We have determined that we need certain projects to be done and that the cost of these projects will run 42 . 9 Million Dollars . This is the report presented to you last month. I see by looking through the plans on financing which were given to you tonight that this 42 . 9 million figure has somehow jumped to 55 million. I guess we are expecting A LOT of inflation over the next 10 years . I calculate that to be over 4 1/2% per year . After reviewing the documents given to you this evening , I believe the most important one is not here . That document would show the true cost of these projects , in dollars , to the citizens of Huntington Beach. The first Item I want to cover is what a bond issue will cost . If we borrow 55 million in bonds and pay that back over a thirty year period, the cost of principal and interest will be : $ 159 , 354 , 813 . 60 . If we borrow only 22 million, as in the alternate plan, over a twenty year period, the cost of principal and interest is : $ 47 , 517 , 321 . 60 AND you still need to raise $33 ,000 ,000 more , so your true total is : $80 , 517 , 321 . 60 . Also, we have not discussed the COST of issuing these bonds , which, I believe, will be around 2% - or about 1 Million additional dollars in cost . The first attached sheet shows the cost of the Pay As You Go method spread over eight years and spread over eleven years , as well as the total cost of each of the . other methods . I have also attached a disclosure sheet showing actual cost of interest . The Pay as You Go Method, obviously , is the method I feel very strongly is the only way to go . Now, I realize you do not want to raise water rates . I don' t blame you; I 'm not anxious to pay more myself . But your only alternative is not to construct the projects we have suggested and, in the long run, this will cost the citizens of this community even more . I would like to make one further suggestion . And that is that you revisit these projects every year to see what they are actually costing and to see what has changed about the supply of water necessary for our citizens . Thank you for your time and consideration. i Pay as You Go Pay as You Go Spread over 11 Years Spread over 8 Years YEAR MONTHLY CUMULATIVE YEAR MONTHLY CUMULATIVE RATE REVENUE RATE REVENUE 1995 $0 . 00 $0 1995 $3 . 00 $3 ,790 , 000 1996 $1 . 50 $1 , 998 , 250 1996 $3 . 50 $8 , 519 , 250 1997 $1 . 50 $4 , 506 , 911 1997. $4 . 00 $13 , 955 . 792 1998 $1 . 50 $6 , 981 , 468 1998 $4 . 50 $20 , 253 , 505 1999 $2 . 50 $10 , 711 , 645 1999 $5 . 00 $27 , 310 , 878 2000 $2 . 50 $15 , 355 , 197 2000 $5 . 50 $35 , 208 , 312 2001 $2 . 50 $19 , 769 , 339 2001 $5 . 50 $43 , 261 ,055 2002 $4. 00 $25 , 796, 773 2002 $5 . 50 $51 , 260 , 547 2003 $5 . 00 $33 , 940 , 962 2003 $5 . 50 $59 , 353 , 368 2004 $5 . 00 $41 , 758 , 989 2005 $5 . 00 $49 , 411 , 438 2006 $5 . 00 $57 , 111 , 935 TOTAL COST BONDS ONLY : $ 159 , 354 , 813 . 60 TOTAL COST BONDS & PAY AS YOU GO: $ 80 , 517 , 321 . 60 TOTAL COST PAY AS YOU GO/ 8 YEARS : $ 59 , 353 , 368 . 00 TOTAL COST PAY AS YOU GO/11 YEARS : $ 57 , 111 , 935 . 00 KNOWING THAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL AT THE LOWEST POSSIBLE COST TO THE TAXPAYER , THE CHOICE SEEMS VERY CLEAR . :Disclosure NO Insurance 05-08-1995 Recap Cost Amount .Financed Price 55000000.00 Amount fin. 55000J001.00 --�� Doc Fee 0.00 Fin. charges 1043.5481Z.60 .; Sales tax 0.00 Total payments 159354813.60 Smog fee 0.00 Misc. Info. Smog fee(State) 0.00 Deferred price 159354813.60 Total Insurance 0.00 Cash Price 55000001.00 License Fee 1.00 Terms 6 Service contr. 0.00 Monthly Payment 442652.26 Luxury Tax 0.00 Balloon Payment 0.00 Rates , SUB-TOTAL 55000001.00 Add-On Rate 0.000 Recap Down Simple Rate 9.000 Cash down 0.00 A.P.R. 9.00 Net Trade-in 0.00 Miscellaneous Dates Def. Payments 0.00 To-day's Date 5/08/95 MFR'S Rebate 0.00 First Payment Date 6/08/95 Last Payment Date 5/09/25 TOTAL DCWN 0.00 Press RETURN for Program Menu OR any F-Key I�IMNI��M Q II 4",�"d",�II�� ARQ A�[�^��AA��MA9iM1�MAR II�ll�II�Il����M�4IDIIMlMr < Payment 442652.26 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 Ir'��f'Sh1[�'�gR'�'Il�'�'�MSP1[�'T]r Il�9i�'�1hIl�'�1P'A'�QM9NIl��Il'�M1r�i'1�Il�Il"a'A'Il�7N!(���'Il��1MP 1I�71�'Il�II'•Il�Il`M�Agg��'A'Il�gq'Il�I; :Disclosure NO Insurance 05-08-1995 Recap Cost Amount Financed Price 22000000.00 Amount fin. 2200�00, 1.,00 Doc Fee 0.00 Fin. charges 25517320..60 Sales tax 0.00 Total payments 47517321.60 Smog fee 0.00 Misc. Info. . Smog fee(State) 0.00 Deferred price 47517321.60 Total Insurance 0.00 Cash Price 22000001.00 License Fee 1.00 i�erms '- `240. Service contr. 0.00 Monthly Payment 197988.84 Luxury Tax 0.00 Balloon Payment 0.00 Rates . SUB-TOTAL 22000001.00 Add-On Rate 0.000 Recap Down Simple Rate 9.000 Cash down 0.00 A.P.R. 9.00 Net Trade-in 0.00 Miscellaneous Dates Def. Payments 0.00 To-day's- Date 5/08/95 MFR'S Rebate 0.00 First Payment Date 6/08/95 Last Payment Date 5/09/15 TOTAL DOWN 0.00 Press RETURN for Program Menu OR any F-Key HP'fAfiq'•11�1P�g TIl�'ll�'�Il�Il�Il�'�Il�'.r'II"Il�IM:f'2'Il�'�I['•'Il�11�-�1P'�Il`'Q`^I1L��1P•1L�'IL��'•'T'.rll`'D'A�1h1L��'1r 1L''�1PM'T f[�'A'Q+'A'2'fr'II'�''Q'T'AMM�'1f�'�'1f R'r'A'II+'A1M< Payment 197988.84 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 t , TO: HONORABLE 'MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM. �1 aL • p' H. E. "BILL" HARTGE, Chairman � �- � 44_ �_ ,t}u WATER TASK FORCE COMMITTEE . DATE: MARCH 271 19 9 5Ana-ui- n � 6 SUBJECT: WATER TASK FORCE COMMITTEE EXAMINATION OF THE CITY WATER MASTER PLAN/FINANCING PLANGe , Background: �o zti 1. In December, . 1993, the City .Council selected a Water Task Force (WTF) to aid the Council in adopting a plan to finance and construct the capital improvements outlined in the Water Master Plan Update of the City.'s water system. Appointed were . Councilmember Bauer, Bob Baier, Gary Gorman, Fred Speaker, Ed Mountford, T.E. Spence, Bob Winchell and Bill Hartge; plus City staff members .Jeff Retina and Bob Franz; plus Boyle Engineering Consultant, William Everest. The Task Force has had twenty-three meetings since its inception in January 194. 2. The following plans have been prepared by consultants for the . City: • Water System Master Plan, June 1988 - Boyle Engineering • Water System Master Plan Supplement - Boyle, April 1990 • Financing Plan - Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) , August 1990 • Draft Financing Plan Update -. BWA, November 1992 • Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan Update Final Draft - Boyle Engineering, BWA, December 1993 These plans have been the primary source of material for evaluation by the WTF, supplemented by Staff as requested. Attachment : 1 contains an Executive Summary of. the updated Water Master Plan and the new Financing Plan for your perusal. Capital Cost Estimate: The project cost estimate in the December, 1993, report of $52.6 million has been reduced to $42.9 million. This is primarily the result of the following WTF recommendations: March 27, 1995 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Water Task Force Investigation of the City Water Master Plan/Financing Plan Page 2 1. Deletion of a seawater desalination -project in the amount of $6.2 million. (The WTF considers this to be a future regional matter by Metropolitan Water District) ; 2. Deletion of $1.4 million for pump station dual drives. (This is no longer a cost effective project) ; 3. A reduction of $1.0 million for renovation of the Overmyer Reservoirs (structural engineering investigation reveals less work will be required than previously anticipated) ; 4. A reduction of $1. 1 million in miscellaneous other projects. The Water Task Force's revised project list is shown on Attachment 2. A location map showing the various types of projects is shown on Attachment 3 . Note that the proposed projects are truly City wide. Financing Plan The Task Force considered funding the projects by either Bond Issue or Pay-As-You-Go Plans. 1. The Bonding Plan has an advantage of providing funds at early stages of the capital improvements. It has the disadvantage of costing as much as two to three times the cost of the project when bonds are paid for over a 30 to 35 year period. 2. The Pay-As-You-Go Plan has an advantage of .minimizing the overhead cost associated with the bonding method. The disadvantage is that the City would be able to only implement the capital improvements as funds become available over a projected 11-year period from a surcharge on the water rate. Attachment 4 discusses the comparison of the two plans in more detail. Attachments 5 and 6 offer.. a rigorous comparison of the effects of each plan on typical customers' water bills. Conclusion• The Water Task Force has completed its assigned task. The Water System Master Plan printed. document has been updated by Boyle Engineering to reflect the Capital Improvement Projects and Funding as amended by this Task Force. March 27, 1995 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Water Task Force Investigation of the City Water Master Plan/Financing Plan Page 3 Recommendations: 1. Approve the 1995 Water System Master Plan. 2. Approve the Pay-As-You-Go Financing Plan. This plan as well as the Bonding Plan reflect an increase of connection fees (also known as Capital Facilities Charge) for newly developed residential units from the current $60 per dwelling unit to $2,400 per meter unit commencing in 1995. The Task Force recommends that there be no change in connection fees for commercial/industrial uses. BH: lb wdin mocc952703 Attachment I � d CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN CHRONOLOGY • 1987 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. HIRED TO DEVELOP NEW WATER MASTER PLAN FOR CITY SYSTEM • 1988 MASTER PLAN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER, 1988; NO FINANCING PLAN INCLUDED • 1989 - BARTLE/WELLS ASSOCIATES HIRED TO DEVELOP FINANCING PLAN - 1992 TWO DRAFT FINANCING PLANS PREPARED BUT RECESSION PRODUCES DISCONTENT WITH BOTH - NO ADOPTION • 1993 PLAN UPDATED WITH FINANCING INCLUDED; CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS WATER TASK FORCE TO REVIEW • 1994 FIRST WATER TASK FORCE MEETING - JANUARY, 1994 TWO-HOUR DISCUSSION SESSIONS HELD EVERY THREE WEEKS ONE YEAR TO UNDERSTAND MASTER PLAN/DEVELOP CONSENSUS • 1995 WATER TASK FORCE PRESENTS UPDATED/REVIEWED MASTER PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION WATER MASTER PLAN TEAM • WATER TASK FORCE • Council Member • Planning Commissioner • Community Representatives • Orange County Water Task Force Member • Chamber of Commerce • CITY STAFF • Public Works • Administrative Services Fire • Community Development • Community Services • BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION • In conjunction with Bartle-Wells Associates AREA OF SERVICE • HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMITS • SUNSET BEACH ■ PAYS 10% HIGHER WATER RATE • SURFSIDE ■ PAYS 10% HIGHER WATER RATE • POTENTIALLY BOLSA CHICA ■ NOT INCLUDED IN PLAN ■ "WHAT IF" CONSIDERED DURING ANALYSIS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BRIEF OVERVIEW -WATER TASK FORCE FINDINGS • CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED • CITY WATER SYSTEM HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 1980: SEVERAL DEFICIENCIES MUST BE CORRECTED • CONCERN THAT FIRE PROTECTION IS NOT ADEQUATE IN SOME PARTS OF OUR SERVICE AREA AND VERY LITTLE WATER STORAGE IS AVAILABLE FOR A MAJOR OUTAGE • 1988 PLAN REQUIRED UPDATING AND REVISING TO BRING IT IN LINE WITH CURRENT KNOWN NEEDS • THIS PLAN WILL ASSURE THE QUALITY OF SERVICES WE PRESENTLY ENJOY FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS • AN INCREASED CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY FOR FUTURE GROWTH TO PAY ITS "FAIR SHARE" WHY IS THE WATER MASTER PLAN NEEDED? • NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS - WATER SYSTEM HAS NOT KEPT PACE WITH GROWTH _ • NEED TO SUSTAIN EXISTING QUALITY OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS WHILE CORRECTING KNOWN DEFICIENCIES • INSUFFICIENT WATER SOURCE CAPACITY • INSUFFICIENT WATER STORAGE CAPACITY • INADEQUATE WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM IN SPECIFIC AREAS • NO SIGNIFICANT EMERGENCY WATER STORAGE FOR OUTAGES • TO MINIMIZE FUTURE WATER COST INCREASES, SYSTEM NEEDS ABILITY TO MEET DEMANDS FROM WHATEVER SOURCE IS LEAST COSTLY • NEED TO KEEP PACE WITH MORE STRINGENT WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS THE WATER MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION IS DIVIDED INTO FOUR PHASES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PHASE ✓ REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ✓ INCREASED IMPORT WATER CAPACITY (from MWD) ✓ PROLONGING LIFE OF EXISTING PIPELINES ✓ SYSTEM-WIDE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II ✓ SEISMIC PROTECTION OF OVERMYER RESERVOIR ✓ FIRST NEW WATER WELL ✓ NEW WATER STORAGE ✓ FIRE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR/SUNSET BEACH PHASE III ✓ SECOND NEW WATER WELL ✓ MORE NEW WATER STORAGE ✓ TRANSMISSION PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PHASE IV ✓ THIRD NEW WATER WELL ✓ COMPLETION OF NEW WATER STORAGE ✓ TRANSMISSION PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT COSTS . WATER TASK FORCE PRIORITIZED PROGRAM Priority Project Description Project Cost IS) Phase I System Improvements (City-wide) 205,000 Projects Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 330,000 Chlorine Room Modifications 200,000 MWD Import Station Modifications 300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage A 1,035,000 Phase II Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements 2,500,000 Projects Talbert Valley Reservoir- Phase 1 8,500,000 Sunset/Surfside (PCH Crossing 1) 500,000 Well No. 1 1,300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage B 12,800,000 Phase III Talbert Valley Reservoir - Phase II 7,000,000 Projects PCH Crossing 11 (Anderson Street) 450,000 Well No. 2 1,300,000 Energy Backup System (existing wells) 1,600,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase 1 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Initial Phase 900,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage C 14,150,000 Phase IV PCH Crossing III (Broadway) 450,000 Projects Well No. 3 1,300,000 Water Treatment Facilities (2 existing Wells) 2,900,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase II 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Final Phase 900,000 Talbert Valley Reservoir - Phase III 6,500,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage D 14,950,000 TOTAL 42,935,000 03/21/95 �Luri _ �ar_J�IIr ■I�I�t" - =u1� MIS- MIN�■ LE = uuiun,l _ jinn .�I�il■ ill ull_ -- �— — �:\ fi 215 "' r . ,€ �I'�IIIIIIII jLli f.n fS:]=r' • _ sT i �� li � SAC III-.11�„_+��� �491M. lop E. . ICI Yf. „. I ,AI� ' �I Lrn- WATER MASTER PLAN TIMING • 11 YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD • WILL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY UPON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION • WHEN COMPLETED, CITY'S WATER NEEDS WILL BE MET WELL INTO THE FUTURE HOW WILL THE WATER MASTER PLAN BE PAID FOR? • CITY COUNCIL COULD SELECT FROM SEVERAL OPTIONS • WATER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS "PAY AS YOU GO" ■ NEEDED FACILITIES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 11 YEARS ■ WOULD BE COMPLETELY PAID FOR IN 11 YEARS ■ NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONTRIBUTE WHEN CONNECTED • BONDING CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ■ NEEDED FACILITIES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 11 YEARS ■ WOULD INCREASE TOTAL COST 2-1/2 TIMES ■ WOULD BE PAID BACK OVER 35 YEARS 1995 WATER MAST-ER. -PLAN COMPARISON OF FINANCING . OPTIONS Capital Surcharge Requirements ................ ... ... $6.00 mw a© vasfcoPs $5.00 _:- 7!!i7l!1. �i; 4 .7. 11!111111.� W ..... $4.00 $3.00 } �� �� a PAY AS YOU GO FL $2.00 ' a c.� $1 .00 - - - - - - - - 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 FISCAL YEAR WTFRATES 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN COSTS • $42.9 MILLION IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES • 75% OF COST IS FOR PROJECTS TO SUPPORT EXISTING CUSTOMERS • ONLY$3 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (FIRST YEAR); PLUS 500 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (SECOND YEAR); PLUS 500 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (THIRD YEAR) • MAXIMUM IS $5.50'PER MONTH PER HOUSE (SIXTH YEAR) • ENDS AT TWELFTH YEAR • 25% OF COST IS FOR PROJECTS TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH -- WILL BE PAID FROM CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGES COLLECTED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT • NEW PROJECTS WILL INCREASE M & 0 COSTS $2 PER MONTH PER HOUSE WHEN ALL BECOME OPERATIONAL CAPITAL FACILITIES - CHARGE EXPLANATION • ONE TIME CHARGE TYPICALLY- IMPOSED ON NEW CUSTOMERS CONNECTING TO SYSTEM AT TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT • BY LAW, MUST BE BASED ON CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILITIES REQUIRED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT • CAN INCLUDE EXISTING FACILITIES IF REQUIRED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT • MUST BE HELD AND ACCOUNTED FOR SEPARATELY • USED ONLY FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT CFC1224 (`;o**APITAL FACILITIES: . C PROPOSED METHODOLOGY * ALLOWS NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PAY ITS "FAIR SHARE" * COST PROPORTIONAL TO NEW CUSTOMER'S DEMAND ON SYSTEM * "EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT" (EDU) IS THE BASIS OF MEASURE 1 EDU FLOW CAPACITY OF 3/4" METER (TYPICAL SF HOME) * BASED ON COST OF "BUY IN" + COST OF NEW-FACILITIES * "BUY IN" COST = FAIR SHARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL CAPACITY * GROWTH ELEMENT COST FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO EXPAND THE SYSTEM'S CAPACITY TO MITIGATE GROWTH * WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO -COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR FIRE SERVICES._ AS AN INCENTIVE TO ATTRACT A LARGER BUSINESS BASE CFC3224 CAPITAL FACILITIES - CHARGE HUNTINGTON BEACH • CURRENT CFC ESTABLISHED IN 1957: INITIALLY $30/DWELLING UNIT OR $150/ACRE, DEPENDING ON PARCEL SIZE. LAST INCREASE IN IN 1982 WHEN RAISED TO $60/UNIT OR $300/ACRE • PROPOSED CFC IS $29400 PER "EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT" 1 EDU = FLOW CAPACITY OF 3/4" .METER (TYPICAL SF HOME) • "BUY IN"- PORTION $19400 AND IS THE FAIR SHARE REIMBURSEMENT (58%) OF PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED FUNDS BASED ON THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM • GROWTH ELEMENT PORTION- _ $1 ,000 AND IS THE FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION (42%) OF COSTS FOR THOSE MASTER PLAN PROJECTS NEEDED TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH • NEW CFC WILL ONLY BE USED TO PAY COST OF NEW FACILITIES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH CFC2228 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN - ' WATER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS • ADOPT 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN AS PRESENTED • ADOPT PRIORITIZED PROJECTS LIST • ADOPT "PAY AS YOU GO" FINANCING METHOD • ADOPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SURCHARGE AS PRESENTED • INCREASE CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE AS PRESENTED • BEGIN IMMEDIATELY WTFREC Attachment 2. PROJECT COSTS WATER TASK FORCE PRIORITIZED PROGRAM Priority Project Description Project Cost (SI Phase I System Improvements (City-wide) 205,000 Projects Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 330,000 Chlorine Room Modifications 200,000 MWD Import Station Modifications 300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage A 1,035,000 Phase II Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements 2,500,000 Projects Talbert Valley Reservoir - Phase 1 8,500,000 Sunset/Surfside (PCH Crossing 1) 500,000 Well No. 1 1,300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage B 12,800,000 Phase III Talbert Valley Reservoir - Phase 11 7,006,000 Projects PCH Crossing II (Anderson Street) 450,000 Well No. 2 1,300,000 Energy Backup System (existing wells) 1,600,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase 1 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Initial Phase 900,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage C 14,150,000 Phase IV PCH Crossing III (Broadway) 450,000 Projects Well No. 3 1,300,000 Water Treatment Facilities (2 existing wells) 2,900,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase II 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Final Phase 900,000 Talbert Valley Reservoir - Phase III 6,500,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage D 14,950,000 TOTAL 42,935,000 03/21/95 Attachment 3 LOCATION MAP WATER MASTER PLAN PROJECTS � a r loam N L Tr fl; 9 uxl 'll T• \ m ws!IMSI t AIIGC�SY —� \ vA000i EDDIM TIL WAIVER `_ MATER FOUlWN VALLEY TALBM W E VORKIMM GI _ S1 ^ �V-` I r LEGEND \ �� \ - ATLHTA • NEW WATER WELLHAULTON • — NEW WATER STORAGE RESERVOIRl;- - NEW PIPELINE \' l PIPE CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM \ ,: • — SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PAOFIC OCM \ :" \: • — MWD IMPORT STATION MODIFICATION B — WATER TREATMENT FACILITY ( EXISTING WELL Attachment 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER TASK FORCE COMPARISON OF FINANCING OPTIONS FOR THE 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN The narrative below explains the increase in water cost for a typical single family home under both financing options. Water costs for all categories of typical customers are shown in the attached tables. PAY-AS-YOU-GO - This plan accumulates the required capital monies from a Capital Improvement Surcharge before the designated projects are begun. It proposes a maximum rate increase of $5.50 per month per meter unit to pay for all construction costs within the eleven year period of implementation. An initial rate increase of $3.00 per month in 1995 is increased annually by 50 cents per month to the maximum of $5.50 for the years 2000 to 2006. Additionally, new residential development would pay a one time $2, 400 per meter unit Capital Facilities Charge for each new water service connection. Total cost using this option, including a 5% inflation factor, is $54.96 million. The inflation is included because not all the projects can be constructed immediately. If they could be, the total cost would 'be $42.9 million, as shown on the Project List. BOND COP' S - This plan borrows the money to begin the construction of the designated projects. Three bond issues would occur during the eleven year construction period. Payback of this borrowed money is done using a Capital Improvement Surcharge over a 35 year period. This option has a maximum rate increase of $5.00 per month per meter unit. An initial increase of $1 .50 per month in 1996 would be increased to $2.50 in 1999, $4.00 in 2002 and $5.00 in 2003. The $5.00 rate would continue until the first bond issue is retired in 2025. The amount .of increase would then drop to $4.00 until 2028, when the second bond is retired. It would drop to $3 .00 for years 2028 to 2031 , when the last bond is retired. Exactly as with the Pay As You Go option, this method would also implement a $2, 400 per meter unit Capital Facilities Charge on new residential development. Total cost using this option is $137.79 million, which includes inflation, interest paid on the bond, and the bonding overhead costs. NOTE FOR BOTH FINANCING OPTIONS: At the conclusion of either of the funding options there is to be a monthly rate sustained of $2 per unit to cover the cost of operations and maintenance for the new facilities constructed under the 1995 Master Plan. This cost typically would then be incorporated into the operations and maintenance budget. Attacrment 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN FINANCING "PAY AS YOU GO"OPTION COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY BILLS TYPICAL CUSTOMERS COST COMPARISON PER YEAR MONTHLY ADAGE CONSUMP'ITON 2000 CATEGORY E`f ER WIER MONTHLY CONSUMPTION CHAR' RATES 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 1999 thru 2005 CHARGE 100 Cu.Ft (PER 100 Ca Ft) SINGLE FAMILY 3/4" $5.00 17 $0.75 MONTHLY 1 $17.751 $20.75 $21.25 1 $21.75 1 $22.25 $22.75 $23.25 RESIDENCE COST PER UN $17.75 . $20.75 $21.25 $21.73 $22.25 S22.7S $2125 MULTIFAMILY 1" $10.00 28 $0.75 IMONTHLY 1 $38.501 $53.50 $56.001 $58.50 $61.001 $63.501 $66.00 RESIDENCE(44UM COSTPER UN $9.63 $13.38 $14.00 $14.63 SIS.2S $15.88 $16.50 MULTI FAMILY 2" 1 $20.00 1 126 $0.75 MONTHLY 177.001 $270.001 $285.501 $301.001 $316.50 $332.00 $347.50 RESIDENCE(26 UNIT) COST PER UN $6 81 1 $10.38 $10.98 1 SII.58 1 $12.17 $12771 S13.37 COMMERCIAL/ 1" $10.00 46 $0.75 MONTHLY $44.50 $50.50 $51.50 $52.50 $53.50 $54.50 $55.50 INDUSTRIAL COST PER lIN1 $44.50 1 $50.50 1 $51.50 $52.50 1 $53.50 SS4.50 1 $55.50 COMMERCIAL/ 2" $20.00 126 $0.75 IMONTHLY H$114.50 $132.50 $135.50 $138.50 $141. $144.50 $147.50 INDUSTRIAL COST PER UN 14.50 $13250 $13150 $13&50 $141.50 $144.50 1 $147.50 COMMERCIAL/ 4" $90.00 697 $0.75 1 $612.75 - $672.751 $682.75 1 $692.751 $702.75 $712.75 $722.75 INDUSTRIAL COST PER UNI S61 Z 75 1 S672 7S 1 $682 7S 1 $692.75 1 $702.75 $71175 $722.75 COMMERCIAL/ 6" $180.00 1,397 $0.75 MONTHLY $1 20.25 $1,340.25 $1,360.25 $1,380.25 $1,400.25. $1,420.25 $1,440.25 INDUSTRIAL COST PER UN $1,220.25 1 $1,340.25 1 $1,360.25 1 $1,380.25 1 $1,400.25 1 $1,420.25 1 $1,440.25 COMMERCIAL/ 8" $260.00 2,698 $0.75 MONTHLY $2 283.50 -$2,475.50 $2,507.50 $2,539.50 $2,571.50 $2,603.50 $2,635.50 INDUSTRIAL COST PER L WM S2,283.50 1 $447150 1 $2,507.50 1 $2,539.50 1 $2,571.50 1 $2,60150 1 $2,63150 COMMERCIAL/ 10" $350.00 5,245 $0.75 IMONTHLY 1 1 $4 83.75 1 $4,559.75 1 $4,605.751 $4,651.751 $4,697.751 $4,743.751 $4,789.75 INDUSTRIAL I COST PER UN $4,283.75 1 $4,559 73 1 $4,605.75 1 $4,651.75 54;697.75 1 $4,743.75 1 $4,789.75 MRIGATION 1-1/2" $15.00 85 $0.75 IMONTHLY $78.75 $90.75 1 $92.751 $94.751 $96.75. 1 $98.75 -$100.75 COST PER UNI Attachment 6 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN FINANCING BONDS/COPS OPTION COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY BINS TYPICAL CUSTOMERS. - COST COMPARISON PER YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION 2003 2026 2035 CATEGORY: ME I ER MET7.R MONTHLY CONSUMPTION RATES 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 1999 2000 2001 2002 thm thrn thr° SIZE CONSUMPTION 2031 CHARGE (100 Cu Ft) (PER 100 Cu.Ft) 2025 2029 (END) SINGLE FAMILY 3/4" S5.00 17 $0.75 IMONTIMY S17.75 I S17.751 S1925 S19.25 S19.25 S2025 52025 S20 25 521.75 522.75 $21.75 520.75 RESIDENCE COST PER UNIT SI7.7S SI7.7S $1925 S19.25 $ 19.25 S2Q25 S2Q25 S2Q25 1 S21.75 I S22.751 $21.751 S2Q 7S MULTI-FAMILY 1" S10.00 28 S0.75 MONTHLY S38.50 S38.50 S46.00 S46.00 S46.00 S51.00 S51.00 S51.00 S58.50 S63.50 558.50 S53.50 RESIDENCE(4-PLEA COST PER UMT $963 S963 1 $11.50 1 S11.50 $11.50 S1275 $1275 1 $12 75 1 S1,463 1 $11881 $1,4 63 1 51338 MULTI-FAMMY 2" 820.00 126 S0.75 MONTHLYI I S176.631 S176.631 S221.631 S221.631 S221.63 I S251.631 S251.63 I S251.63 Sz%,.63 S326.63 S296.63 S266.63 RESIDENCE(26 UNTI) ICOSTPER UNIT I I S679 1 $679 1 S8 53 1 S&52 I S&52 1 $9 M 1 $9.68 1 $9.68 1 SIL41 1 $1256 1 SIL41 I Sld25 COMMERCIAL/ 1" S10.00 46 S0.75 MONTHLY I I S44.131 S44.131 S47.131 S47.131 S47.131 S49.131 S49.131 S49.131 S52.131 S54.131 S52.131 S50.13 INDUSTRIAL ICOSTPERUNH 1 1 54413 1 S"13 I 547.13 1 547.13 1 $47.13 1 $49.13 1 $49.13 1 S4913 1 $5213 1 S5,K13 1 S5213 I S5Q13 COMMERCIAL/ 2" S20.00 126 SO.175----1 MONTHLY I I S114.501 S114.501 S122.001 S122.00 I S122.00 1 $127.001 S127.001 S127.001 S134.50 I S139.501 S134.50 I S129.50 INDUSTRIAL. ICOSTPER UNIT 1 1 $11,450 1 $114,501 S12200 1 $12200 1 $12200 $127.00 I S12700 I $127.00 I S13450 1 $13950 $134 50 1 $129.50 COMMERCIAL/ 4" S90.00 697 S0.75 MONTHLY I I S612-391 S612381 S63938 I S63938 I S639381 S657381 S65738 - S657391 S684381 S70238 $694391 S66639 INDUSTRIAL COST PER UAW $61238 S61238 1 $63938 1 S639.38 1 $63938 1 $657.38 S657.38 56S7.38 S6M38 1 $70238 1 $6"38 1 566638 COM1,4ERCIAL/ 6" S180.00 1,387 S0.75 IMONTMY I I S1,219.88 SI,219.991 S1,273.991 S1,273.88 I S1,273.88 I S1,309.88 51,309.88 51,309.88 S1,363.88 $1,399.99 SI,273.50 S1,237.50 INDUSTRIAL ICOSTPERUMT 1 1 $1,219.88 1 $1,21198 1 $1,273.88 1 S1,27288 I $1,273.88 1 $1,30988 1 $1,309.88 1 $1,309.88 1 51,363.88 1 S1,399.d8 51,27250 SIM750 COMMERCIAL/ 8" S260.00 Z699 $0.75 MONTHLY I I S2,283.50 I S2,283.50 I S2,361.501 S2,361.50 I S2,361.501 S2,413.50 S2,413-501 S2,413.50 I S2,491-501 S2,543.50 I S2,361.50 82,309.50 INDUSTRIAL ICOSTPERUMT 1 152,28150 1 $2,28150 1 $2,361.50 1 S2,361.50 I S2,361.50 1 $2,41150 1 SX41150 1 $2,41150 1 $2,491.50 1 $2,54150 1 $2,361.50 1 52,309.50 COMMERCIAL/ 10" S350.00 5,245 S0.75 MON17fl.YI I S4,293381 S4,28338 I S4,398391 S4,388.38 I S4,38838 I S4,458391 S4,45838 S4,458-391 S4,56338 S4,633381 S4,38838 54,31838 INDUSTRIAL ICOSTPERUMT 1 1 54,28138 1 S4,28238 I S4,38d38 1 $4,38&38 1 $4,38&38 1 54,45&38 1 $4,45d38 1 $445d38 1 $45a38 1 $4,63.138 1 S4,38d38 I 54,31d38 IRRIGATION I-12" S15.00 85 S0.75 IMOMMY I S79381 S79391 S82.88 I S82.88 I S82.88 I S85.88 S85.88 I S85.88 I S9038 S9338 S9038 S8739 COST PER UNIT I - - - - - - - - - - - JErq.us Council/Agency Meeting Held: -�S Deferred/Continued to: *�(Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signa e Council Meeting Date: June 5, 1995 Department ID Number: PW-95-041 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrato N PREPARED BY: LES M. JONES, II, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Water Master Plan Capital Improvements Financing IFStatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s Statement of Issue: The 1995 Water Master Plan identifies necessary capital improvements with an estimated cost of $42.9 million. Two separate charges are recommended to finance the projects. The proposed fees require adoption by ordinance and resolution through the public hearing process. Fundinq Source: Funding will be provided through a Monthly Capital Surcharge on the Municipal Services bill; and an increased Capital Facilities Charge for new residential development . Recommended Action: 1. Approve the Water Task Force recommendation to utilize the Pay-As-You-Go financing plan when the Monthly Capital Surcharge is implemented. 2. Approve the Water Task Force recommendation of an increased Capital Facilities Charge for new residential development as presented in the Task Force Report 3. Direct staff to prepare the necessary ordinances and resolutions to implement the Monthly Capital Surcharge and the increased Capital Facilities Charge. 4. Accept the proposed public hearing schedule related to the charges. Alternative Action(s): 1. Approve an alternative financing method. 2. Direct revisions to the proposed public hearing schedule. 3. Do not implement a financing plan for the water capital improvements. Construction will be deferred until a funding method is determined. B RLQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING.DATE: June 5, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-95-041 Analysis: In December 1993, the Water Task Force was appointed by Council to review the updated 1988 Water Master Plan, and evaluate financing options. In March 1995, the Water Task Force presented its report to the City Council. The report included a prioritized project list, eleven year construction schedule and a recommended financing plan. The financing plan consists of two elements: 1) a new Monthly Capital Surcharge for all water customers; and, 2) an increased Capital Facilities Charge for new residential development. The recommended fee schedule for the Monthly Capital Surcharge provides revenue concurrent with the project construction phases. The Task Force supports the "pay-as-you-go" method because it avoids the long term debt and financing costs of bonds or Certificates of Participation. Alternative financing options were prepared and presented to the Council, but not recommended by the Task Force. One option considered financing the improvements over thirty-five years with Certificates of Participation. Another financing option combined "pay- as-you-go" and twenty year Certificates of Participation. Expanding the construction schedule from 11 years to 15 years was suggested as a way to keep rate costs to a minimum. This approach does not agree with the recommendation of the Task Force. In addition, it has also been discouraged by the consultant, Boyle Engineering in a May 16 letter which is attached. If this approach were adopted, however, it would be first necessary for the consultant to reprioritize and regroup the construction schedule to a 15 year duration and amend the Master Plan update. Once completed, a pay- as-you go option could then be developed to finance the new construction schedule. As an alternative to extending the construction schedule, a modest fee($2.00) may be implemented in 1995 with the construction schedule delayed to begin until 1998. This would expand the funding schedule but maintain the 11 year construction schedule. Delaying start of the construction would allow impounding of the initial funding which would produce a lower initial rate. It would also increase the risks associated with further delay of the construction as explained in the Boyle letter and the recommendation of the Task Force. The increased Capital Facilities Charge will be assessed to new residential developments. The charge is calculated by the number of "equivalent dwelling units" served. The formula includes the value of the existing water system and the cost of future capital needs. This fee change requires modification of Municipal Code Section 14.12.010. The Task Force recommends prompt implementation of the Capital Facilities Charge. A rate increase to meet the operational expenses of the Water Enterprise will be presented with the 1995/96 Budget, and adopted concurrent with the budget. The Monthly Capital Surcharge can be included in the water rate adjustment resolution, or a separate public hearing can be arranged after October 1, 1995. A proposed schedule is attached. Environmental Status: Not applicable. 0012284.01 -2- 05/31/95 5:25 PM RLQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI01 MEETING DATE: June 5, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-95-041 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number __ _.... .... 1 Proposed Public Hearing Schedule 2 Capital Facilities Charge 3 Standard Connection Fees 4 Comparison of Financing Options; Source of Funding 5 Letter from Boyle Engineering re: Extension of Construction Schedule 6 Memorandum from Councilmember Garofalo re:Financing Alternatives 0012284.01 -3- 05/31/95 5:25 PM RtQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI01 MEETING DATE: June 5, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-95-041 Proposed Implementation and Public Hearing Schedule August 7, 1995 Introduction of Ordinance to modify Capital Facilities Charge August 14, 1995 Budget Study Session. Operational water rate increase included with the proposed 1995/96 Water Fund budget. Council to provide direction for Monthly Capital Surcharge implementation, either with 1995/96 Budget or separately. August 21, 1995 Adoption of Ordinance to modify Capital Facilities Charge (Public Hearing) Adoption of Resolution to increase Capital Facilities Charge Requires 45 day notification; new charge effective 9/21/95. September 5, 1995 Operations & Maintenance water rate increase to be adopted (Public Hearing) with the 1995/96 budget. September 18, 1995 Adoption of 1995/96 Budget resolution and water rate increase resolution. Additional public hearings for the Monthly Capital Surcharge may be scheduled per Council direction. 0012284.01 -4- 05/31/95 5:25 PM CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE METER FLOW CAPACITY EQUIVALENT CAPITAL SIZE (gallons per DWELLING FACILITIES inches minute) UNITS CHARGE 3/4 30 1 $ 2,400 1 50 2 4,800 1 -1 /2 100 3 7,200 2 160 5 12,000 3 320 11 261400 4 500 17 40,800 6 1000 33 . 79,200 Compound 6 1400 47 112,800 Fire Meter 8 2400 80 192,000 Fire Meter 10 3800 127 304,800 Fire Meter 05/18/95 STANDARD CONNECTION FEES City 3/4-Inch Meter 1-Inch Meter 2-Inch Meter 6-Inch Meter 6-Inch Fire Service Anaheim Carlos Bustos $2,305.00* $2,355.00* $2,620.00* $2,710.00* Not Available (714) 254-4231 Costa Mesa (MCWD) $1,200.00 $1,300.00 $6,600.00 Over 3" based on Ron Briles usage x $4.90 '714) 631-1291 Fountain Valley $304.02 $507.07 $1,622.21 $10,142.37 Not Available Romero Alvarez (714) 965-4433 x250 Garden Grove - Marion Dan $585.00 $615.00 $1,800.00 $7,500.00 Not Available (714) 741-5396 $17.55** $18.45** $54.00** $225.00** Irvine Ranch Water Dist. Janet Iray Fees based on area of development/density. (714) 453-5300 Range $400.00 (low density) to $12,000 (high density) '.aguna Beach Water Dist. "om Eastman $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 Not Available (714) 494-1041 $250.00 (meter) $300.00 (meter) $600.00 (meter) Los Alisos Water Dist. Phyllis Cottingham $1,100.00 + $1,100 + $1,100 + (714) 830-0580 $ 80.00 (meter) $120.00 (meter) $340.00 (meter) Not Available Not Available Moulton Niguel Carlo Habash $1,400.00 (all sizes for Laguna Niguel)(water and sewer combined) (714) 643-2584 $1,200.00 (all sizes for Mission Viejo, Laguna Hills, etc) Standard Connection Fees Page 2 City 3/44nch Meter 1-Inch Meter 2-Inch Meter 6-Inch Meter 6-Inch Fire Service Newport Beach (City) $195.00 $260.00 $605.00 $2,805.00 $2,850.00 Sheila O'Brian (714) 644-3141 Santa Ana (City) $735.00 $760.00 $1,510.00 Not Available $5,258 to $5,800 Tai Koon (Dependant on location) 1 714) 647-5837 Santa Margarita (WD) $1,200.00 (all sizes)(Rancho Santa Margarita, Coto de Caza) Eddie Bolton $2,600.00 (all sizes)(Mission Viejo) (714) 582-2330 $116.00 (meter) $172.00 (meter) $829.00(meter) Not Available Not Available Westminster (City) Huyen Nguyen $1,560.00+ $1,560.00+ $1,560.00+ $3,450.00+ $4,700.00 (714) 898-3311 material material material material ' Includes $2,225.00 Assessment Fee Compiled by: Janie Alba **Processing Fee 5/19/95 COMPARISON OF FINANCING OPTIONS SOURCE OF FUNDING PLAN PAY AS YOU GO BONDS TOTAL TERM OF BONDS • $ 55 Million 0 $55 Million Not Applicable : • • • $ 4 Million $51 Million $55 Million 30 Years $ 33 Million $22 Million $55 Million 20 Years Description of Financing Options "Pay as You Go" This plan uses a maximum rate increase of $5.50 per month per residential meter to pay for all construction costs within an eleven year, period of time. An initial rate increase of $3.00 per month in 1995 is increased annually by 50 cents per month to the maximum of $5.50 in 1.999/2000, then drops to $2.00 per month in fiscal year 2005/2006. Bonds/COP's Bonds/COP's would result in payment for the facilities with three separate 30 year bond issues compared to the eleven year financing of the " Pay As You Go" Plan (Construction of the improvements would be on the same eleven year schedule, however). Residential monthly rate increases would. be $1.50 in 1996, increased progressively to $5.00 in 2003. The $5.00 rate would continue until the first bond- issue is retired in 2026. New connection fees would be the same as the " Pay As You Go" Plan. Alternative Same construction schedule as above plans. Two separate 20 year bond issues_ would be issued in combination with " Pay As You Go" financing. Residential monthly rate increases.would be $1.90 in 1995, increased progressively to $5.50 in fiscal year 2001/2002. The $5.50 rate would drop to $4.00 in fiscal year 2005/2006 and continue at $4.00 until the first bond issue is retired in 2016. See Attached Graph summarizing monthly rates. 0011549.01 04/20/95 4:07 PM Comarison of Financing Options Monthly Capital Surcharge Requirements $6 ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Bonds/COP's 4) $6 .............................. .......... ........... . . . . . .................................................. 44 ------------------ --------------- ------- ................... ......................................................................... ......................... 2 Alternativ mbination $3 .......... ........................... ................................................................... .................... ...................................... L) $2 ... . .................... ................................................ 0 "Pay as You Go" $1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------........................................................... ..................................... $0 . . . . 94 95 N 9 N n w 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Fiscal Year Capital Projects Fee -Alternative Financing Plans Fiscal Monthly Rate($) Year Pay as You Go Bonds/COP's Alternative 1994 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1995 $3.00 $0.00 $1.90 1996 $3.50 $1.50 $2.25 1997 $4.00 $1.50 $3.00 1998 $4.50 $1.50 $3.35 1999 $5.00 $2.50 $3.65 2000 $5.50 $2.50 $4.00- 2001 $5.50 $2;50 $5.00 2002 $6.50 $4.00 $5.50 2003 $5.50 $5.00 $6.50 2004 $5.50 $6.00 $5.50 2005 $5.50 $5.00 $5.50 2006 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2007 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2008 $2.'00 $6.00 $4.00 2009 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2010 $2.00. $5.00 $4.00 2011 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2012 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2013 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2014 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2015 $2.00 .$5.00 $4.00 2016 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2017 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2018 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2019 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2020 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2021 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2022 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2023 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2024 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2025 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2026 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2027 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2028 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2029 $2.00 $3.00 $2.60 2030 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 2031 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 2032 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 FEECOMP.XLS 4/20/95 SoLjie Englneerinq Corporation consultinq engineers ! architects 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 774 / 4 76-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658.9020 FAX 714 / 721.7142 Mr. Les Jones, Director of Public Works May 16, 1995 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan Capital Improvement Program - Implementation Period Since 1987 when Boyle initially became involved with the Water System Master Plan, the construction period for the recommended program has changed. In our 1988 Master Plan we recommended the CIP be implemented over a six-year period,based on a realistic engineering construction period, which was the basis of the CIP until 1993. During the last two years, the implementation period has been extended to 11 years, based on the desire and need to minimize the financial impact of the program. It was.felt that this extended duration was acceptable, even though there was some increased risk to public safety.because of seismic damage.vulnerability. Structural retrofit improvements to existing city reservoirs are required for the facilities to successfully withstand a major earthquake. In addition,the city has no emergency water storage, which would be invaluable following a major earthquake. It has been recently suggested that the CIP implementation period be further extended, say to 15 years. We believe that such an extension would: 1) be more characteristic of a long-term maintenance program rather than a critically-needed capital improvement program, 2) unduly increase the public safety risk in the city, and 3) not significantly reduce the financial impact of the program. East Bay Municipal Utility District in Oakland is undertaking a major water system seismic upgrading program. Because of public concern for the immediacy of providing protection, the District voted to have the program completed in 10 years rather than 15 as originally proposed. Similar action is justified in Huntington Beach. We cannot recommend nor support an extension of the CIP beyond 11 years, which is the basis for our recently adopted 1995 Update. Boyle En ineering Corporation William R. Everest, Principal Engineer cc: Jeff Renna - Water Operations Manager OC-H 10-250-20/jones.ocD/tt LAO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L'a" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: LES M. JONES II Director of Public Works DATE: MAY 22, 1995 SUBJECT: 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS At the Council Study Session on May 8, 1995, a question was raised regarding the $2 .00 per month operation and maintenance fee that would be assessed at the conclusion of the payoff of the capital projects in all financing proposals presented. The information below should answer this question. QUESTION: How does the $2 . 00 per month fee for operation and maintenance compare to the current cost of operation and maintenance based on the current year' s budget? ANSWER: The $2 . 00 fee compares favorably, as it is based on the current year budget costs for the operation and maintenance of similar facilities. In Table 8 of the "Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan - 1995 Update, " dated March, 1995, page 22, the total annual 0 & M cost for all the proposed facilities is shown to be $1 . 632 million (estimated in 1995 dollars) . This figure represents what the annual 0 & M cost would be for these facilities if they were currently in operation, having just been completed. The estimated 1995 0 & M cost of $1 . 632 million is based on the current average costs for operating similar facilities in the existing Huntington Beach water system, in addition to current maintenance costs. Since the facilities would be new at the completion of the construction period, this was taken into account when estimating these costs, as initial year 0 & M efforts are typically lower than in later years. Additionally, annual depreciation costs are included in the estimates. When compared against the existing water system' s 20+ year old facilities, the actual costs for the existing facilities are currently on the order of 50% higher. In determining the $2 .00 per month 0 & M fee shown in the 1995 Water Master Plan proposal, the $1 . 632 million 0 & M cost estimate was divided by the estimated 72, 900 equivalent dwelling units (EDU) estimated to exist in the years following the construction period. The numbers of EDU' s are, shown in Tables 16, 17, and 18 in the 1995 Water Master Plan document (see pages 35, 36, and 37 on the first line entitled, "Customer Data") . Dividing the $1 . 632 million by 72, 900 EDU' s yields approximately $24 per year, or $2 . 00 per month. If you should have any additional questions or need more clarification, please contact me. LMJ: jr cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Ass ' t. City Administrator CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCEL COMMUNICATION HUNi1k%*MN BEACH TO: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator FROM: Dave Garofalo, City Council Member DATE: May 26, 1995 SUBJECT: WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING As we discussed, I am concerned over several rate increases this Council will be acting on yet this year. One is clearly in the area of"Water" and another in "Refuse Collection". There will probably be yet others as we attempt to manage in the 1990's. Water Department- I would like to request that your staff prepare an alternative financing and improvement program that utilizes a pay-as-you-go approach with the rates being incrementally increased in a manner necessary to finance a phased implementation of the acknowledged necessary capital improvements. Specifically, there is no reason this eleven year program could not be a 15 year plan.. We build and pay-as-we-go for one third at a time. In fact, if we were to immediately institute a new$2.00 per month fee on the.water bill and did so for 36 months, we would then have accumulated over$3 million. That would be pay-as-you-go then stating construction and payment for one third of the project over three, five year periods.-While this may be longer, in my opinion it is more affordable. I believe we will have several major capital projects that need to be looked at and instead of ignoring and delaying, I would rather be responsible for planning and truly paying-as-we-went! understand that most of this analysis is already available, therefore it should not require very much additional staff time. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. DG:paj xc: Honorable Mayor and City Council 1 5eadiff Partners ``EcF't'e� �'I v, "stirh A joim«nture of Pacific Coast I Io-xs and U.W.C.Duclopmem Corp. HUNT i CO-,- ar June 5, 1995 LIF The Honorable Victor Leipzig, Mayor Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Agenda Item F-2; Water Master Plan Capital Improvements Financing Mayor Leipzig and City Council: Seacliff Partners has reviewed the materials for the above item and generally supports the recommendations of the 'Water Task Force to adopt a financing plan to support citywide water system improvements, with one major exception. While we agree that a proposed new Capital Facilities Charge is warranted, we disagree with the Task Force recommendation that the fees be charged only to new residential development, with no associated fees for non-residential development. We believe this proposal is unfair for the following reasons: Non-r_esi en W ses-have_a significant_imtzact an citywide water use. In the 1990 Battle Wells Associates Water Master Plan Financing Plan Study, the City reported that 27 percent of all metered water usage in the City was by commercial (i.e. non- residential) uses. This information is consistent with the water demand factors used by the City in designing the master plan of water facilities for the Holly Seacliff Area. As indicated on pages 36-38 of the Holly Seacliff Specific plan Technical Appendix, non-residential uses (commercial, industrial, mixed development and open space uses) account for approximately 30 percent of the overall water demand in the area. Developers of non-residential properties should be required to pay for their fair share of new system improvements Linder the fee schedule as recommended by the Task Force, developers would pay widely varying capital facilities fees for new development, as shown on the following table indicating fees applicable to four typical development scenarios on a ten acre site: Capital Land Use Demand Factor Total Demand Facilities e 60 single family dwellings 1.2 Gal/Min/Acre 12 GaIfMin $144,000 (!� 6 du/ac) 100 townhomes 2.2 Gal/Min/Acre 22 Gal/Min $240,000 (@ 10 du/ac) Retail (109,000 sf) 1.3 Gal/Min/Acre 13 Gal/Min $ 3,000 (@ 0.25 FAR) Industrial (178,000 sf) 3.7 Gal/Min/Acre 37 Gal/Min $ 3,000 (@ 0.41 FAR) L] 520 Broadway, Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA 90401 (310) 394-3379 Fax(310) 394-6872 1t/1 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 721-9777 I'ax (714) 729-1214 l / 06/05/95 15:50 V714 729 1214 CUD PCH HBCO As the table illustrates, even though the total water demand from residential development is lower, the proposed fees are significantly and .disproportionately higher for residential development. The City's General Plan and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan require the City to charge developers for public infrastructure improvements on a "fair-share" basis The proposed water capital facilities fee, if applicable only to new residential development but not to non-residential development, does not conform with adopted City policies and ordinances. Further, if the City does not impose fees on non-residential development in the Holly Seacliff area to pay for public water system improvements financed and constructed by Seacliff Partners, the City is not using its best efforts to obtain maximum reimbursements for Seacliff Partners, as required by the terms of Development Agreement No. 90-1. We respectfully request the City Council to address these issues prior to adoption of the Water Master Plan and Capital Improvements Financing Plan, Sincerely, William D. Holman Project Manager cc: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Les Jones, Public Works Director Gail Hutton, City Attorney Connie Brockway, City Clerk Melanie Fallon, Community Development Director Tom Zanic RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Water Capital Improvements Financing COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 5, 1995 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS ...__ ........ ....... ....... .... ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ......... ........ .. ..... ......... ................ .........._ ..................... REVIEWED RETURNED FOR DED .. ... ... .. Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial [City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM . . . Only) A Nf A PART OF THE RE ���1N 9 MEETING OF -- r ����� OF THE CITY CLERK S ®NNI€ OKWAY,CITY CLERK Water Master Plan Task Force Report Council Update 5/8/9 5 Master Plan Improvements Total Cost: $42.9 Million *Add new water supplies *Increase water storage capacity *Improve delivery system * Protect public health & safety Water. Task Force Report Council Actions 4/27/95 ♦ Accepted ✓ Prioritized project list ✓ 11 yr construction schedule ✓ Increased Capital Facilities Charge for new residential development ♦Requested further information ✓ Emergency storage needs ✓Alternative financing plan with lower initial rate & shorter bond term Water Task Force Report Council -Update 5/8/95 ---------------------------------------------- ♦Amount of Emergency Water Storage ✓ Comparable to other agencies ✓ Realistic to meet anticipated need ♦ Financing Alternative with Lower Initial Rate & Shorter Bond Term ✓ Combines 20 yr COPS & Pay As You Go ✓ Lower initial rate; higher long term costs Emergency Water Storage ---------------- Agency # of avg days Anaheim 4.9 Brea 7 Fullerton 1.4 Garden Grove 0.85 Moulton Niguel Water District 0.56 South Coast Water District 2.3 Yorba Linda Water District 1.2 Water Task Force Financing Alternative to Pay As You Go Monthly Surcharge (Residential 3/4" Meter) Method Term Initial Maximum Rate Rate Pay As You Go 11 Yr $3.00 $5.50 Bonds/COPS 30 Yr $1 .50 $5.00 Alternative/ 20 Yr $1 .90 $5.50 Combination Monthly Rate Increase Alternative Financing Methods. $6 Pay as You Go $5 Alternative $4 $3 $2 Bonds/COP' $1 $0 94 96 96 0 2 4 6 6 10. 12 14 16 16 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 Fiscal Year Cost per Residence (3/4" Meter) Method 1 st yr Full Cost 1995 2031 Pay As You. Go $36 $ 11284 . COPs $ 0 $ 1 ,848 Alternative $23 $11478 Full Cost per Residence. 1995-2031 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 Total New Revenue: 1995-2031 Alternative Financing Methods ---------------------- New Revenue to Finance Water Master Plan Total Net Revenue Present Value Pay as You Go $ 144.5 $65.0 Bonds/COP's $214.7 $67.6 Alternative $ 172.9 $67.8 S in Millions Total New Revenue: 1995-2031 Alternative Financing Methods S in Millions a Total $200 $172.9 ®NPV $144.5 $150 $100 67.6 67.8 65.0 $50 $0 Bonds Altemative Pay as You Go NPV-Net Present Value Water Task Force Recommendation ♦Support Pay As You Go- Financing ✓ Lowest total costs ✓Avoids long term debt ✓ Retains bonding option ♦Support Capital Facilities Charge ✓ Pays for existing system & new demands ✓ On new residential development 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN FINANCING "ALTERNATE"OPTION COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY BILLS TYPICAL CUSTOMERS COST COMPARISON PER YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION 2002 20D6 2016 CATEGORY METER METER MONTHLY CHARGE, RATES 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 thru thru thru SIZE CHARGE OO�SUMPTION (PER 100 Cu CAL Ft.) .FL) 2005 " 2015 (�) SINGLEFAMILY 39' $5.00 17 $0.75 MONTHLY $17.75 $19.65 S21.15 $20.75 $21.10 S21.40 S21.75 S22.75 $2325 S21.75 S20.75 RESIDENCE COST PERUMT $17.75 S196S S1I.IS S3475 321.70 SJL40 S11.75 S12.75 =25 52L75 S2Q75 MULTI-FAMILY 1' $10.00 28 IMONTHLY 11 S38.50 $48-001 $49.75 1 S53-501 S5525 S36.75 S58.30 $63.501 566.00 SSS.SO I S5330 RESIDENCE(4-PLFX) CWT PER UNlf S9.65 1 $12001 S1244 $1138 1 Slidl I S1419 I S14.63 I S1189 I S1Q30 1 S1-463 1 S1158 MULTI-FAMILY 2' 520.00 126 S0.75 ONTHLY $177.00 S234.00 $244.50 5267.00 S277.50 S286 S0 5297.00 $327.00 $342.00 5297.00 5267.00 RESIDENCE(26UNTT) COS7PERUMT I I S681 I S9.00 S140 I SJdJ7 I Sla67 SIL03 SIL42 I S12S8 I S11I5 SIL42 519W Cl '%C1AL/ 1- $10.00 46 S0.73 MONT]II.Y S44.50 1 $48.30 1 S49.001 S50.501 $51.201 S51.301 S52.501 S54.50 $55.501 S52.30 S5030 B RIAL ICOSTPERUNl7 I I S41J0 1 S4d.J0 1 S4900 1 $5450 1 551.20 1 S51.80 1 S3250. SS630 1 $5150 1 -55150 1 SM50 COMMERCIAL/ 2- S20.00 126 1 $114.S0 $124.001 S125.751 S129.501 S131.231 $132.73 1 S134.50 S139-SOI S142.00 S134-SOI S129.50 INDUSTRIAL lCOSTPERUNIT I I S11150 I S124.00 1 $12175. $139.50 1 S131.15 1 $13273 1 S13450 1 $139.50 1 $14200 1 5134S0 1 $13150 COMMERCIAL/ 4• $90.00 697 S0.75 IMONTHLY 11 S612.751 S645.051 S651.001 S663.751 5669.70 I S674.301 S680.75 I S697.751 S706251 S680.75 S663.75 INDUSTRIAL 1 COST PERUMT 561275 1 $64105 S65L4V I $"173 1 S669.70 1 $67180 1 SMA7S 1 $697.75 1 170623 I $68d75 $66175 COMMERCIAL/ 6' S180.00 1,387 S0.75 I SI.220.251 SI.292.951 SI.M.S0 I S019251 SI.330.901 S1,340.70 I S1,35221 1 $1,385251 S1,401.751 S1,3S225 I S1,31925 INDUSTRIAL I JCWTPERLWJT I I S1,22Q25 1$1,28293 1 S1,194.50 I S1,31133 I SI,33Q80 I S1,34A70 151,35225 SI,58125 $1,401.73 1 $1,55225 51,3112S COMMERCIAL/ 8' $260.00 Z698 10.75 IMONTHLY I I S2.293.501 S2,38420 I SZ402.73 I S2,442.30 I S2,461.03 I S2,476.93 I SZ495-V S2,548.50 52,573.00 I S2,49530 S2,442.50 INDUSTRIAL COSTPERU,%7T S2,24150 S1,Sd4.20 52,40275 $1,44250 152,461.05 1$2,47695 1$2,49150 S1,J4d.S0 S2,57100 1 $3,49150 12,44250 COMMERCIAL./ 10• S350.00 5245 50.75 MONTHLY S4,283.75 $4,536A5 $4,593.00 S4,682.75 I S4,72930 I S4.769.201 $4,815.751 S4,948.73 I S5,01525 1 $4,815.751 S4,692.75 INDUSTRIAL lCOSTPERVNIl $4.28175 1$4.55645 1$4,58100 1 S4,68275 1 S4,72130 I S4,769.20 I S4,81175 1 Sl,N4d7S 155,01125 1 S4,81175 1 $4,68275 IRRIGATION 1-1/1• S15.00 85 SO IMONTHLY 11 $79.75 1 S98.251 $90.00 1 S93.751 S95.501 S97.001 S98.75 S103.75 S10623 I S98.75 S93.75 COSTPER UNIT mr�as 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN FINANCING "BONDS/COP'S"OPTION COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY BII.LS TYPICAL CUSTOMERS COST COMPARISON PER YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION 2003 2026 2031 CATEGORY METER METER MONTHLY CHARGE. RATES 1994 1993 19% 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 tLru thru thru SIZE CHARGE CONSUMPTION (PER 100 Cu FL) 2023 202i 2031 100 Cu.Ft.) (END) !LE FAMILY 3/4' $5.00 11 S0.73 MONTHLY S17.7S S17.7$ S1915 S1915 S19.2S S202S S20.2S S20.25 $21.75 S22.75 S21.73 S20.7S IDENCE CQSTP£RUNIT SI7.7S SI7.71 flout $19.31 f19.2f fIQJi fIR1S fIQJS f11.7f f121S SILTS fIQ73 -TI-FAMILY 1' S10.00 28 6.717 IMONTHLY I I S38.50 I S36.30 1 $46.00 1 S46.00 S46.00 I S51.00 I S51.00 I SSI.00 I S58-501 S63.30 I S58.30 S53.50 IDENCE(4-PLEX) I JCOSr PEA UNIT I I f9.6J I 5R63 I SILSO I JIL50 I SILS0 I f/275 I fI27S 1 f127f 1 $120 flied 1 f1261 1 fll.id .TI-FAMILY 2- S20.00 126 IMONTHLY S177.00 I S177.00 S222.00 S222.00 I S222.00 $252.00 1 S252.001 S232.00 I S297.001 $327.001 S297.00 I S267.00 :DENCE(26UNIT) COSr PEA f/N1T S61/ 1481 SLS! SL54 I Stile $169 1 $169 1 $9.69 1 SIL43 I S12S1 SIL42 Sld27 !MEACIAL/ V $10.00 46 f0.7S MONTHLY. WS0 $44.30 S47.30 S4730 1 $47.50 1 S4930 I S49.30 $4930 S32.30 S5430 S5230 530.30 ISTRIAL I COS'T PER I/NIT I I $"SO I S"50 I .S(7.50 1 SI7.10 1 $050 1 $IRSO 1 $49.10 1 f/9.50 1 SS2$0 I suss 1 SS250 1 SSQSO IMERCUL/ 2' S20.00 126 S0.75 MONTHLY S114.50 $11430 $122.00 S122.00 S122.00 S127.00 S127.00 S127.00 S134.30 $139.50 S13430 S129.30 ISTRW C04T PER UA7T S11450 1 f114.50 $13200 1 $13200 1 $12200 1 S127.00 1 5127.00 1 f127.00 1 S13610 1 $139.50 1 f1Jt.30 I f129.So 4- $90.00 697 $0.75 IMONTHLY 11 $612.751 $612.751 S63823 1 $639.251 S63923 $655151 161525 $655.251 S680.75 1 $697.73 1 S680.75 I S663.75 ISTRIAL COS7MUA7T I I $6127f 1 $61275 1 S61d.2S 1 S61d.25 1 S63LJS 1 $63125 1 $65125 1 S6317S 1 $add$ 1 $697.15 1 568d75 1 SW73 tMERC1AL1 6' S180.00 _._._1,387.._. . 50.73 MONTHLY 1 $1,22023 1 S1.220.251 $1.269.73 1 $1.269.751 S1269.73 I S155.73 1 S1.302.75 1 $1.302.75 1 $1.352.23 $1.38525 SIJ5215 1 $01925 JSTRUL COST PER UNIT 51,22QIS I f1,22Q2! 1 $1,269.75 1 $1,26R71 I S1,269.71 1 S00271 111.502.7$ 1$1,50215 1 51,15225 1 S1,38123 $1,15225 1 $I,3/9.2S (MERCIAL J 2' S260.00 2,698 S-0-737 IMONTHLY 1 $2293.50 1 $2283.30 1 $2.363.00 1 S2.363.00 I S2,363.00 I S2.416.00 I S2.416.00 1 $2.416.00 1 S2.49530 1 $2.348.50 1 $2.49330 1 12.442.50 1STRIAL COST PER UNIT I I 12,2e110 I S2,2di30 I f2,36100 1 12.36100 1 f2,36100 1 S1.41600 1 S2,4/600 I S2,41600 1$2.49150 1 12,51d50 1 $2,49150 1 $2.44250 IMERCIAL1 10' S350.00 5243 IMONTHLY I S4293.73 1 $4,283.75 1 S4.48323 I S4.48323 1 $4,49325 1 S4.61625 I S4.61623 I S4.61623 I S4.813.73 1 $4.948.73 1 $4,815.7S I $4,682.75 USTRIN 1COSrPER UNIT I I S4,2d175 1$4,28175 JS4.44125 1 S4.40125 1$4,44125 1 $4,61425 1 5I.61625 1 SI,61625 IS4,1117S 1 S4,94&75 1 SI,8117! I S4.6d273 CATION 1-1r2' $15.00 83 $0.73 IMONTHLY 1 1 176.73 1 $79.75 1 18623 1 S8625 1 $9623 1 S912S S9121 I S9123 1 $99.75 S103.73 $92.75 $93.75 COST PER UNIT 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN FINANCING. "PAY AS YOU GO"OPTION COMPARISON OF AVERAGE MONTHLY BILLS TYPICAL CUSTOMERS COST COMPARISON PER YEAR MONTHLY AVERAGE CONSUMPTION 2000 CATEGORY METER SIZE METER CONSUMPTION MONTHLY CHARGE, RATES 1994 1995 19% 1997 1998 1999 20�05 CHARGE 100 Cu.Ft 100 Cu Ft) SINGLE FAMILY 3/4' $5.00 17 S0.75 NoNTHLY $17.751 S20.75 $21.25 S21.15 S22.25 $22.75 S23.25 RESIDENCE ICOSTPF.RUNI 517.75 1. 524L73 S21.2S $2L73 $22.25 $22.75 SZL25 MULTI-FAMILY 1' $10.00 28 t0.7S MONTHLY $38.50 $53.50 $56.00 S58.50 $61.00 $63.50 $66.00 RESIDENCE(4-PLE}) I ICOSTPERUN! S963 I i133d 1 S14.001 $14.01 $15.251 SI5.88 SIL50 MULTI-FAMII.Y 2' S20.00 126 S0.7S MONTHLY I I S177.001 $267.001 $282.001 S297.001 $312.001 $327.001 $342.00 RESIDENCE(26 UNIT) COST PER UN.171 1 S6.81 1 $10.27 1 $10.85 1 SIL42 I S12001 $12.58 $1115 COMMERCIAL/ 1' $10.00 46 $0.7S MONTHLY S44.-%1 550.50 1 $5 .501 $52.501 S53.501 $54.501 S55.50 INDUSTRIAL I I COST PER UN171 1 444.501 $50.501 S5I.50 1 $5150 S5150 $54.501 $55.50 COMMERCIAL/ - 2' S20.00 126 $0.75 MONTHLY 1 1 $114.501 S129.501 $132.001 $134.501 S137.00 F 5139.50 1 $142.00 . INDUSTRIAL ICOST PER UN131 I S114.501 S129.501 S131001 $134.501 S137.00 1 $139.501 SI4200 COMMERCIAL/ 4' $90.00 697 7!.7�5MONTHLY $612.75 1 5663.75 1 $672.25 1 $680.75 1 $689.25 1 $697.751 S706 23 INDUSTRIAL I lcosrPER uNi7l I 1612.75 I 5663.75 1 1672.25 I 1680.75 I 5689.25 I 5697.75 I S70Q2S COMMERCIAL/ 6' $180.00 1,387 S0.757] IMONTHLY I I S1,220.251 S1,319.231 $1335.75 1 $1,352.251 S1,368.75 I S1,385.25 - $1401.75 INDUSTRIAL, ICOSTPERUNI $1,220.25 1 51,319.23 1 $1,335.75 1 S1,352.25 1 S1,36&75 1 $1,385.25 1 $1,401.75 COMMERCIAL/ 8' $260.00 2,698 S0.757�] IMONTHLY I I S2.283.501 S2,442.50 I S2,469.001 $2 495.50 1 S2,522.00 I S2 548.50 1 $ 4575.00 INDUSTRIAL I COST PER LIJV171 1 52,283.50 1 $2,442.50 112,469.00 1 S2,49S.50 1 $2,52100 1 S2,54&SO I 52,57S00 COMMERCIAL/ 10' $350.00 5,245 IMONTHLY 1 1 $4 283.75 1 $4,692.75 1 $4 749.25 1 $4,815.73 1 $4 882.23 I S4,948.75 1 SS 015 25 INDUSTRIAL ICOSTPER LWIn 1 $4,283.75 1 $4,682.73 1 S4,749.25 1 $4,815.73 1 $4,882.23 1 $4,94&75 1 S5,015.25 IRRIGATION 1-1/2' $15.00 85 $0.75 IMONTHLY I I 578.75 I S93.75 $96.25 1 $99.73 1 $101.25 1 S103.75 1 $106.25 COST PER UN111 II I - I - I - I - h+s��as Total New Revenue: 1995-2031 Alternative Financing Methods S in Millions214.7 ®Total $200 $172.9 ®NPV 144.5 $150 $100 V 67.6 67.8 65.0 $50 $0 Bonds Atterna ive Pay as You Go NPV-Net Present Value Total New Revenue: 1995-2031 Alternative Financing Methods New Revenue to Finance Water Master Plan Total Net Revenue Present Value Pay as You Go $ 144.5 $65.0 Bonds/COP's $Z 14.7 $67.6 Alternative $ 172.9 $67.8 S in Millions Comparis of Financing Methods -Water K :r Plan Pay as You Go-Rate Increases(Revised) Net Present Monthly Cumulative Value of All Year Rate Revenue Revenue New Revenue 1995 $3.00 $3,790,000 $3,790,000 (1995.2031) 1996 $3.50 $4,729,250 $8,519,250 1997 $4.00 $5,436,542 $13,9551792 1998 $4.50 $6,297,714 $20,253,505 1999 $5.00 $7,057,373 $27,310,878 2000 $5.50 $7,897,434 $35,208,312 2001 $5.50 $8,052,743 $43,261,055 Pay as You Go 2002 $5.50 $7,999,492 $51,260,547 2003 $5.50 $8,092,821 $59,353,368 $64,983,178 20D4 $5.50 $7,998,762 $67,352,129 2005 $5.50 $8.057,392 $75,409,522 2006 $2.00 $3,350,359 $78,759,880 2067-2031 $2.00 $65,758,963 $144,518,843 Bonds-COP's: Rate Increases Monthly Cumulative Year Rate Revenue Revenue 1995 $0.00 $0 $0 1996 $1.50 $1,998,250 $1,998,250 1997 $1.50 $2,508,661 $4,506,911 1998 $1.50 $2,474,557 $6,981,468 1999 $2.50 $3,730,177 $10,711,645 2000 $2.50 $4,643,552 $15,355,197 2001 $2.50 $4,414,141 $19,769,339 Bonds-COP's 2002 $4.00 $6,027,434 $25,796,773 2003 $5.00 $8,144,189 $33,940,962 $67,606,491 2004 $5.00 $7,818,027 $41,758,989 2005 $5.00 $7,652,449 . $49,411,438 2006 $5.00 $7,700,497 $57,111,935 2007-2031 ;$157,632,456 $214,744,392 Rates decrease from$5 to$2 as Bonds are retired Alternative: Rate Increases Monthly Cumulative Year Rate Revenue Revenue 1995 $1.90 $2,420,000 $2,420,000 1996 $225 $3,031,250 $5,451,250 1997 $3.00 $4,076,142 $9,527,392 1998 $3.35 $5,009,597 $14,536,989 Alternative 1999 $3.65 $5,479,154 $20,016,143 2000 $4.00 $5,936,107 $25,952,250 $67,843.380 2001 $5.00 $7,301,154 $33,253,404 2002 $5.50 $8,389,583 541,642,987 2003 $5.50 $8,384,425 $50,027,412 2004 $5.50 $8,186,955 $58,214,366 2005 $5.50 $8,137,054 $66,351,420 2006 $4.00 $6,026,112 $72,377,532 2007-2031 $100,569,022 $172,946,553 • Rates decrease from$4 to$2 as Bonds are retired WMPSUM.XLS 5/3/95 v Monthly Surcharge (Residential 3/4" Meter) Method Term Initial Maximum Rate Rate Pay As You Go 11 Yr $3.00 $5.50 Bonds/COPS 30 Yr $1 .50 $5.00 Alternative/ 20 Yr $1.90 $5.50 Combination Cost per Residence -- (3/4" Meter) .:CtiVNv Method 1 st yr Full Cost Pay As You Go $36 $1 ,284 COPS $0 $ 11848 Alternative $23 $ 11478 riuerua►.,vc - %,U►uuu►AUUu U► ray as 1 UU vU A►►u =uU►►ua Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-WATER UTILITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 199S 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200S 2006 ==vaaaaa.:=------- __==__== as=aza== a=aazzaa a==rasa azr_=zits azaa=aza aaaaaaaa aazaaaaa aaa==aaa aaaszaaa aaarzaz =aaaazza gaga==z3 rzazaaz Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs 70.100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,800 71.100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,800 35,900 36,000 36.100 36,300 36.500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37.300 37,500 37,700 37,900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 180 ISO 190 190 190 190 0 Water Rates and Charges. Annual Sales(1000 hcf) 14,400 14,544 14,689 14,836 14.985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16,226 Consumption Chargeihcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 s0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Charge/3/4"Imo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Extra Unit Charge/mo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $1.200 $2.380 $2,380 $2.380 $2,380 $2.380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2.380 $Z380 $2.380 Monthly Capital Projects Fee per Unit $0.00 $1.90 $2.25 $3.00 $3.35 $3.65 $4.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.50 $5.60 $5.50 $4.00 Beginning Balance $5,000 $4,897 $4.306 $3,888 $11,006 $9,207 $7,028 $5,034 $14,043 $11.572 $9,547 $6,130 $3,010 Revenue($000) Water Sales-metered 10.800 10,900 12,200 12,500 13,5W 14,400 15,300 16.200 17.200 18,600 19.100 20,100 20.300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 Meter Charge 4,208 5,800 6,500 7.400 7,700 8,200 8,500 9,900 10,300 10,800 10,800 11,300 10,100 Extra Unit Charge 1.074 1.900 2,270 2,820 3,200 3,570 3,960 4,650 5,120 5,370 5,630 5,880 5,230 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 120 240 360 480 600 710 710 710 710 710 720 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 215 194 550 460 351 252 702 579 477 306 151 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 19,46S 21,98S 23,854 26,060 27,910 29,561 32,612 34,982 37,079 37,758 39,388 37,604 Net bond proceeds 0 0 0 8,970 0 0 0 13,455 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $24,361 $26,292 $36,713 $37,066 $37,118 $36,589 $51,101 $49,025 $48,651 $47,306 $45,518 $40,614 Expenses($0001 Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15.700 16,000 16,300 17.410 18,480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 `26,010 Operating.New Fac Ides 0 0 91 95 99 372 578 895 I'm 1,453 Z150 Z263 2,263 In-Lieu Tax 2,300 2,820 3,180 3,450 3,700 3,970 4,210 4,670 4,950 5,280 5,390 5,660 5,410 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 500 620 650 680 710 740 780 810 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Projects-Master Plan 0 1,035 2,613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,549 7,553 6,920 5,831 5,790 6,436 0 Debt service 0 0 0 944 944 944 944 2,360 2,360 2.360 Z360 2.360 2,360 Total Expenses $17,100 $20,055 $22,403 $25,707 $27,858 $30,090 $31,555 $37,058 $37,453 $39,104 $41,176 $42,508 $36,852 Ending Balance $4,897 .$4,306 $3,888 $11,006 $9,207 $7,028 $5,034 $14,043 $11,572 $9,547 $6,130 $3,010 $3,761 Bond Issue Amounts 10,000 15,000 ALTPLAN3.XLS 4/20/95 t- Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUAMNGTON BEACH-WATER IMLITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1993 1990 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2000 a==Una=a=anaaof===as===a=a===u a==aa=zn ==Ungava =Qaaaaaa 22222a22 =zaazaaa alaaua=n azoaaaa= aaaauaaa aaaatalu ananaaaa aalataaa auaaa=aa a=uaaQaua Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs_ 70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,8W 71,100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,8W 35,900 36,000 36,100 36,300 36,500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37,300 37,5W 37,700 37,9W Growth-EDU's 100 1W 100 150 2W 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additionalunits 1W 1W 100 150 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 190 190 Water Rates and Charoes: Annual Sales(1000 hcQ 14,4W 14,544 14,689 14,836 14,985 15,135 15,2W 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16,226 Consumption Chargethcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Chargel31,Clmo. $5.00 $5.W $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 . $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.75 Extra Unit Chargehno. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.W $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.W $7.60 $7.75 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $1,200 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 32,3E Monthly Capital Projects Fee per Unit $0.00 $0.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 =2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $4.00- $5 00 $&00 $6 00 $5 Oc Beginning Balance $5.000 $4.897 $2,246 $11.539 $8,305 $4,228 $18,377 $13,494 $6,200 $19.168 $14.769 $8,8W $3,098 Revenue($000) Water Sales-metered 10'em 10,900 12,200 12,500 13,500 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18,600 19,100 20,100 20,300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270. 290 310 330 350 370 4W 410 430 430 Meter Charge 4,208 4,200 5,900 6,100 6.100 7,200 7,300 7,700 9,000 10,4W 10,400 10,900 11,200 Extra Unit Charge 1,074 1.080 1,940 2,170 2,400 3.070 3,300 .3.540 4,450 5,150 5,400 5,660 5,800 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 120 240 360 480 600 710 710 710 710 710 720 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470. 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 112 577 415 211 919 675 310 9W 738 442 155 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 111 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 17,045 20,952 22,287 23,525 26,161 28,269 29,725 32,620 36,838 37,389 38,904 39,278 Net bond proceeds 0 0 11,681 0 0 19,734 0 0 19,734 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $21.941 $34,860 $33.826' $31,830 $50,123 $46,645 $43,218 $58.554 $56.006 $52.158 $47,741 $42,376 =noun=== Expenses($000) Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15,700 16,000 16,300 17,410 18,480 19,660 20,9W 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 26,01- Operating-New Facilities 0 0 91 95 99 372 578 895 1,343 1,453 Z,150 Z263 $26.. In-Lieu Tax 2,300 2,460 3,050 3,160 3,340 3,750 3,930 4,170 4,650 5,180 5,300 5,560 5,660 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 0 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capital projects-Master Plan 0 1,035 2,613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,546 7,553 6,920 4831 6,790 6,435 0 Debt service 0 0 1,048 1,048 1,048 Z821 Z821 Z821 4,593 4,593 4,693 4,693 4,593 Total Expenses $17,100 $19,695 $23,321 $25,521 $27,602 $31,747 $33.152 $37.018 $39,386 $41,237 $43,321 $44,843 $38,529 Ending Balance $4,697 $2,246 $11,539 $8,305 $4,228 $18.377 $13,494 $6,200 $19,169 $14,769 $8,838 $3,098 $3,848 Bond Issue Amounts 13,000 22,000 22,000 BONDS.XLS 4/20/95 • uy "0 A vu vu VV4.wu Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-WATER UTILITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 aaaaaaaa=x=a=aaa=a=aaa=e=aa=== =ea==asa ===canna ==canna= =aaaaeaa ne==a=aa =====a=a a=aa===a ====aa=a =z=a=aaa =name=== a==aaama aazaaaaa aezaaaan Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs 70,100 70,200 70,300 70.400 70.600 70,800 71,100 71,400 71.700 72.000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35.800 35,900 36.000 36.100 36.300 36,500 36.700 36.900 37.100 37,300 37,500 37,700 37.900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 ISO ISO 190 190 190 190 0 Water Rates and Chartres: Annual Sales(1000 hcf) 14.400 14.544 14.689 14,836 14.985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15.749 15,967 16,066 16,226 Consumption Charge/hcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1: Meter Charge/3/,C/mo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.%. Extra Unit Chargelmo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $1,200 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2.380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 Monthy Capital Projects Fee per Unit $0.00 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $2.00 Beginning Balance $5,000 $4,897 $5,466 $6,496 $6,768 $6,972 $7.054 $7,666 $6,241 $5,740 $5,783 $4,536 $3,695 Revenue 150001 Water Sales-metered 10,800 10.900 12,200 12,5W 13,5W 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18.600 19.100 20,100 20.300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 Meter Charge 4.208 6.700 7,600 8,200 8,700 9,300 9,800 10,300 10.300 10.800 10.800 11,300 8,300 Extra Unit Charge 1.074 2.370 2,810 3,250 3.700 4.160 4.620 4.870 5.120 5,370 5,630 5,880 4,320 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 120 240 360 480 600 710 710 710 710 710 720 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 Soo 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 273 325 338 349 353 383 312 287 289 227 185 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 20,835 23,683 25,215 27,348 29,489 31,523 33,363 34,592 36,787 37,570 39,309 34,928 Net bond proceeds 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Total Available Funds $21.997 $25.731 $29.150 $31.711 $34.116 $36.460 $38,577 $41,029 $40.833 $42.527 $43,354 $43,845 $38,6. Expenses 1S0001 Operating-Extg facilities 14,8W 15.700 16,000 16.300 17.410 18.480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23.470 24,740 26,010 26,010 OperaBng-Now FaciiMes V 0 91 95 99 372 576 895 1,343 1,453 2,150 Z293 2,283 In-Ueu Tax Z300 3.030 3,430 3.630 3,930 4,230 4,510 4.760 4,950 5,280 5.390 5.660 5,000 Capital replacement 0 500 " 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 810 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capit PPoojects-Master Plan 0 1,035 Z613 4,368 5,135 5,724 6,546 7,553 6,920 5,831 .5,796 5,435 0 Debt service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses $17,100 $20,265 $22,653 $24,943 $27,145 $29,406 $30,911 $34,788 $35,093 $36,744 $38,817 $40,150 $34,085 Ending Balance $4,897 $5,466 $6,496 $6,768 $6,972 $7,054 $7,666 $6,241 $5,740 $5,783 $4,536 $3,695 $4,538 PLANB.XLS 4/20/95-- COMPARISON OF FINANCING OPTIONS SOURCE OF FUNDING PLAN PAY AS YOU GO BONDS TOTAL TERM OF BONDS • $ 55 Million 0 $55 Million Not Applicable = • • • $ 4 Million $51 Million $55 Million 30 Years $ 33 Million $22 Million $55 Million 20 Years Description of Financing Options "Pay as You Go" This plan uses a maximum rate increase of $5.50 per month per residential meter to pay for all construction costs within an eleven year period of time. An initial rate increase of$3.00 per month in 1995 is increased annually by 50 cents per month to the maximum of $5.50 in 1999/2000, then drops to $2.00 per month in fiscal year 2005/2006. Bonds/COP's Bonds/COP's would result in payment for the facilities with three separate 30 year bond issues compared to the eleven year financing of the " Pay As You Go° Plan (Construction of the improvements would be on the same eleven year schedule, however). Residential monthly rate increases would be $1.50 in 1996, increased progressively to $5.00 in 2003. The $5.00 rate would continue until the first bond issue is retired in 2026. New connection fees would be the same as the " Pay As You Go' Plan. Alternative - Same construction schedule as above plans. Two separate 20 year bond issues would be issued in combination -with " Pay As You Go" financing. Residential monthly rate increases would be $1.90 in 1995, increased progressively to $5.50 in fiscal year 2001/2002. The $5.50 rate would drop to $4.00 in fiscal year 2005/2006 and continue at $4.00 until the first bond issue is retired in 2016. See Attached Graph summarizing monthly rates. 0011549.01 04/20/95 4:07 PM Coi._,,arison of Financing Options Monthly Capital Surcharge Requirements Bonds/COP" d $5 A L $4 4n Alternativ mbination c. $3 e t� c "Pay as You Go" 2 ' >n so 1-4 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Fiscal Year Capital Projects Fee -Altemative Financing Plans Fiscal Monthly Rate($) Year Pay as You Go BondsICOP's Altemative 1994 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 1995 $3.00 $0.00 $1.90 1996 $3.50 $1.50 $2.25 1997 $4.00 $1.50 $3.00 1998 $4.50 $1.50 $3.35 1999 $5.00 $2.50 $3.65 2000 $5.50 $2.50 $4.00 2001 $5.50 $2.50 $5.00 2002 $5.50 $4.00 $5.50 2003 $5.50 $5.00 $5.50 2004 $5.50 $5.00 $5.50 2005 $5.50 $5.00 $5.50 2006 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2007 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2008 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2009 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2010 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2011 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2012 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2013 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2014 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2015 $2.00 $5.00 $4.00 2016 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2..017 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2018 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2019 $2.00 $5.00 $3.00 2020 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2021 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2022 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2023 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2024 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2025 $2.00 $5.00 $2.00 2026 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2027 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2028 $2.00 $4.00 $2.00 2029 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 2030 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 2031 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 2032 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 FEECOMP.XLS 4/20/95 H �!4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Huwn%CWN Kum TO: LES JONES, Public Works Director FROM: ROBERT J. FRANZ, Deputy City Administrator SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE FINANCING METHODS - WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN DATE: APRIL 20, 1995 At the Study Session on the Water Master Plan/Financing Plan, the City Council . directed staff to return within 30 days with an alternative`financing plan that funds a majority of the Master Plan with "Pay As You Go' financing. The Water Task Force Report included a °Pay As You Go' and a Bonds/COP's financing alternative. Attached is an alternative which combines these two approaches and includes a 20 year term on the Bonds/COP's. The Task Force recommends the `Pay As You Go' financing alternative. After City Council approval of the Task Force recommendation or an alternative financing approach; a public hearing will need to be scheduled. ERT J. FRANZ Deputy City Administrator RJF:skd cc: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator Task Force Attachments: Monthly Capital Surcharge Requirements Description of Financing Options 'Pay As You Go' Option Bonds/COP's Option Alternative - Combination of'Pay As You Go' and Bonds 0011781.01' 04/21/95 8:59 AM CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE METER FLOW EQUIVALENT CAPITAL SIZE CAPACITY DWELLING FACILITIES finches) (gallons oer minute) UNITS CHARGE 3/4 30 1 S 2,400 1 50 2 4,800 1-1/2 100 3 7,200. 2 160 5 12,000 3 320 11 26,400 4 500 17 40,800 6 1000 33 79,200 6 FM* 2000 67 160,800 8 1600 53 127,200 8 FM* 3500 ' 117 280,800 10 FM* 5500 183 439,200 Factory Mutual -This is a high capacity meter approved for fire protection service 05/04/95 EMERGENCY WATER STORAGE SURVEY UPDATED MAY 1995 r EMERGENCY STORAGE UTILITY (no. of days) City of Fountain Valley 0.80 City of Newport Beach 5.20 City of Seal Beach 0.78 City of Westminster 0.31 Mesa Consolidated Water District 0.60 AVERAGE 1.54 days City of Brea 7.00 City of Fullerton 1.40 City of Orange 0.90'BI City of Paramount 0 City of Anaheim 4.90 City of Santa Ana 0.40 City of Garden Grove 0.85 City of Tustin 0.371.61 Moulton Niguel Water District 0.56 South Coast Water District 2.30 Trabuco Canyon Water District 4.00 Yorba Linda Water District 1 .20 AVERAGE 1 .99 days hvv.A.f va^W UG]K{{.Jn'8titiv:Li-::.vbu{v}i'l.J:fi iC{{:4.:iJ:•:::v.K..iir<W,.{:m\Ym Bloomington, Illinois 1.60 Colorado Springs, Colorado 0.60 Lincoln, Nebraska 1 .20 St. Paul, Minnesota 1 .30 AVERAGE 1 .18 days METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: 7 days NI For operational storage, City Council has approved plan for 0.73 days storage by year 2003 �' Additional storage of 4.5 million gallons to give one day emergency supply is currently in design Master Plan Improvements Total Cost: $42.9 Million ♦Add new water supplies ♦Increase water storage capacity ♦Improve delivery system ♦Protect public health & safety Financial Elements ♦Capital Improvement Surcharge All current water customers ♦Capital Facilities Charge New residential development 4 Water Task Force Report Council Actions 4/27/95 N:•Y:-YiiY:{viiiii:_ii:::}:iiii?:iiiiit:.Y:D:iv:N.iM:I ♦ Accepted ✓ Prioritized project list ✓ 11 yr construction schedule ✓ Increased Capital Facilities Charge for new residential development *Requested further information ✓ Emergency storage needs ✓Alternative financing plan with lower initial rate & shorter bond term Water Task Force Report Council Update 5/8/95 *Amount of Emergency Water Storage ✓ Comparable to other agencies ✓ Realistic to meet anticipated need ♦ Financing Alternative with Lower Initial Rate & Shorter Bond Term ✓ Combines 20 yr COPS & Pay As You Go ✓ Lower initial rate; higher long term costs Water Master Plan ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ .. ............... Task Force Report Council Update 5 /8/95 CAPITAL FACILITIES HUNTINGTON BEACH • CURRENT CFC ESTABLISHED IN 1957: INITIALLY $30/DWELLING UNIT OR $150/ACRE, DEPENDING ON PARCEL SIZE. LAST INCREASE IN 1N 1982 WHEN RAISED TO $60/UNIT OR $300/ACRE • PROPOSED CFC IS $2,400 PER "EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT" 1 EDU = FLOW CAPACITY OF 3/4" METER (TYPICAL SF HOME) • "BUY IN" PORTION = $1 ,400 AND IS THE FAIR SHARE REIMBURSEMENT (58%) OF PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED FUNDS BASED ON THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING SYSTEM • GROWTH ELEMENT PORTION = $1 ,00.0 AND IS THE FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION (42%) OF COSTS FOR THOSE MASTER PLAN PROJECTS NEEDED TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH NEW CFC WILL ONLY BE USED TO PAY COST OF NEW FACILITIES REQUIRED TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH CFC2228 CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE PROPOSED METHODOLOGY * ALLOWS NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PAY ITS "FAIR SHARE" * COST PROPORTIONAL-TO NEW CUSTOMER'S DEMAND ON SYSTEM * "EQUIVALENT DWELLING UNIT" (EDU) IS THE BASIS OF MEASURE 1 EDU = FLOW CAPACITY.. OF- 3/4" METER (TYPICAL SF HOME) * BASED' ON COST OF "BUY IN" + COST OF NEW FACILITIES * "BUY IN" COST = FAIR SHARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR COSTS PREVIOUSLY ADVANCED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL CAPACITY * GROWTH ELEMENT COST = FAIR SHARE ALLOCATION OF COSTS TO EXPAND THE SYSTEMS CAPACITY TO MITIGATE GROWTH * WOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR FIRE SERVICES AS AN INCENTIVE TO ATTRACT A LARGER BUSINESS BASE CFC3224 CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE • ONE TIME CHARGE TYPICALLY IMPOSED ON NEW CUSTOMERS CONNECTING TO SYSTEM AT TIME OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT • BY LAW, MUST B.E BASED ON CAPITAL COSTS OF FACILI-TIES REQUIRED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT • CAN INCLUDE EXISTING FACILITIES IF REQUIRED TO SERVE NEW DEVELOPMENT • MUST BE HELD AND ACCOUNTED FOR SEPARATELY • USED ONLY FOR CAPITAL PURPOSES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT CFC122a 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN COSTS • $42.9 MILLION IN TOTAL EXPENDITURES • 75% OF'COST IS FOR PROJECTS TO SUPPORT EXISTING CUSTOMERS • ONLY $3 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (FIRST YEAR); PLUS 500 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (SECOND YEAR); PLUS 500 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (THIRD YEAR) • MAXIMUM IS $5.50 PER MONTH PER HOUSE (SIXTH YEAR) • ENDS AT TWELFTH YEAR • 25% OF COST IS FOR PROJECTS TO MITIGATE NEW GROWTH -- WILL BE PAID FROM CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGES COLLECTED ON NEW DEVELOPMENT • NEW PROJECTS WILL INCREASE M & 0 COSTS $2 PER MONTH PER HOUSE WHEN ALL BECOME OPERATIONAL HOW WILL THE WATER MASTER PLAN BE PAID FOR? • CITY COUNCIL COULD SELECT FROM SEVERAL OPTIONS • WATER TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS "PAY AS YOU GO" ■ NEEDED FACILITIES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 11 YEARS ■ WOULD BE COMPLETELY PAID FOR IN 11_YEARS ■ NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONTRIBUTE WHEN CONNECTED • BONDING CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED ■ NEEDED FACILITIES WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN 11 YEARS ■ WOULD INCREASE TOTAL COST 2-1/2 TIMES ■ WOULD BE PAID BACK OVER 35 YEARS WATER MASTER PLAN TIMING • 11 YEAR CONSTRUCTION PERIOD • WILL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY UPON CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION • WHEN COMPLETED, CITY'S WATER NEEDS WILL BE MET WELL INTO THE FUTURE PROJECT COSTS WATER TASK FORCE PRIORITIZED PROGRAM Priority Project Description Project Cost (S) Phase I System Improvements (City-wide) 205,000 Projects Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 330,000 Chlorine Room Modifications 200,000 MWD Import Station Modifications 300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage A 1,035,000 Phase 11 Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements 2,500,000 Projects Southeast Complex - Phase I(Talbert Site) 8,500,000 Sunset/Surfside (PCH Crossing 1) 500,000 Well/WTP/Conservation - Phase 1 1,300,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage B 12,800,000 Phase III Southeast Complex - Phase 11 (Lamb School) 7,000,000 Projects PCH Crossing II (Anderson Street) 450,000 Well/VNTP/Conservation - Phase 11 2,900,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase 1 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Phase 1 900,000 SUBTOTAL- Stage C 14,150,000 Phase IV PCH Crossing III (Broadway) 450,000 Projects WeIIM/TP/Conservation - Phase 111 4,200,000 Transmission Main Replacement - Phase II 2,900,000 Corrosion Control - Phase If 900,000 Southeast Complex - Phase III 6,500,000 SUBTOTAL - Stage D 14,950,000 TOTAL 42,935,000 10/28/94 THE WATER MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION IS DIVIDED INTO FOUR PHASES OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PHASE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ✓ INCREASED IMPORT WATER CAPACITY (from MWD) ✓ PROLONGING LIFE OF EXISTING PIPELINES ✓ SYSTEM-WIDE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II ✓ SEISMIC PROTECTION OF OVERMYER RESERVOIR ✓ FIRST NEW WATER WELL ✓ NEW WATER STORAGE. ✓ FIRE PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS - HUNTINGTON HARBOUR/SUNSET BEACH PHASE III ✓ SECOND NEW WATER WELL ✓ MORE NEW WATER STORAGE ✓ TRANSMISSION PIPELINE REPLACEMENT PHASE IV ✓ THIRD NEW WATER WELL ✓ COMPLETION OF NEW WATER STORAGE ✓ TRANSMISSION PIPELINE REPLACEMENT WHY IS THE WATER MASTER PLAN NEEDED? • NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS HAS GROWN SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS - WATER SYSTEM HAS NOT KEPT PACE WITH GROWTH • NEED TO SUSTAIN EXISTING QUALITY OF SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS WHILE CORRECTING KNOWN DEFICIENCIES • INSUFFICIENT WATER SOURCE CAPACITY • INSUFFICIENT WATER STORAGE CAPACITY • INADEQUATE WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM IN SPECIFIC AREAS • NO SIGNIFICANT EMERGENCY WATER STORAGE FOR OUTAGES • TO MINIMIZE FUTURE WATER COST INCREASES, SYSTEM NEEDS ABILITY TO MEET DEMANDS FROM WHATEVER SOURCE IS LEAST COSTLY • NEED TO KEEP PACE WITH MORE STRINGENT WATER QUALITY REGULATIONS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE BRIEF OVERVIEW -WATER TASK FORCE FINDINGS CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED • CITY WATER SYSTEM HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY SINCE 1980: SEVERAL DEFICIENCIES MUST BE CORRECTED • CONCERN THAT FIRE PROTECTION IS NOT ADEQUATE IN SOME PARTS OF OUR SERVICE AREA AND VERY LITTLE WATER STORAGE IS AVAILABLE FOR A MAJOR OUTAGE • 1988 PLAN REQUIRED UPDATING AND REVISING TO BRING IT IN LINE WITH CURRENT KNOWN NEEDS • THIS PLAN WILL ASSURE THE QUALITY OF SERVICES WE PRESENTLY ENJOY FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS • AN INCREASED CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY FOR FUTURE GROWTH TO PAY ITS "FAIR SHARE" AREA OF SERVICE • HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMITS • SUNSET BEACH ■ PAYS 10% HIGHER WATER RATE • SURFSIDE ■ PAYS 10% HIGHER WATER RATE • POTENTIALLY BOLSA CHICA ■ NOT INCLUDED IN PLAN ■ "WHAT IF" CONSIDERED DURING ANALYSIS WATER MASTER PLAN TEAM - - - • WATER TASK FORCE • Council Member • Planning Commissioner • Community Representatives • Orange County Water Task Force Member • Chamber of Commerce • CITY STAFF • Public Works • Administrative Services • Fire • Community Development • Community Services • BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION • In conjunction with Bartle-Wells Associates CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN CHRONOLOGY • 1987 BOYLE ENGINEERING CORP. HIRED TO DEVELOP NEW WATER MASTER PLAN FOR CITY SYSTEM • 1988 MASTER PLAN ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER, 1988; NO FINANCING PLAN INCLUDED • 1989 - BARTLE/WELLS ASSOCIATES HIRED TO DEVELOP FINANCING PLAN - 1992 TWO DRAFT FINANCING PLANS PREPARED BUT RECESSION PRODUCES DISCONTENT WITH BOTH - NO ADOPTION • 1993 PLAN UPDATED WITH FINANCING INCLUDED; CITY COUNCIL APPOINTS WATER TASK FORCE TO REVIEW • 1994 FIRST WATER TASK FORCE MEETING - JANUARY, 1994 TWO-HOUR DISCUSSION SESSIONS HELD EVERY THREE WEEKS ONE YEAR TO UNDERSTAND MASTER PLAN/DEVELOP CONSENSUS • 1995 WATER TASK FORCE PRESENTS UPDATED/REVIEWED MASTER PLAN TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1995 WATER MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - i E CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINMN BEACH HLULIVeu FHuM �r AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 5'-1-55 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK To Honorable Mayor and City Council From Les M. Jones II, Director of Public Works Date May 4, 1995 , Subject WATER MASTER PLAN INFORMATION In preparation for the May 8 Study Session on the new Water Master Plan, attached are copies of the materials submitted for the March 27 Study Session. Also attached for your review are new materials in response to Council's questions from March 27 and other new detail information pertinent to this issue. LMJ:JRR:lb cc: Michael T. Uberuaga - City Administrator Ray Silver-Assistant City Administrator r RECEIVED FROM DPW � �`'')H AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD, �AT - THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 3'a OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROOKWAY,CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan Water Task Force Bacic round ♦1988 Master Plan adopted-- without finance plan Water Master Plan ♦1989-92 Two finance plans rejected 1995 Update ♦1993 Master Plan updated-- finance plan included ♦1994 Task Force appointed ♦1995 Task Force Report 1 Master Plan Findings Water Task Force *Major water facilities developed *Council Member 1955-1980 *Concerns: *Planning Commissioner ., Insufficient water sources ✓ Insufficient water storage *Community Representatives ✓Inadequate delivery system in some areas *City Staff ✓Regulatory compliance ✓No emergency water supply *Boyle Engineering Corporation i 2 Task Force Goals Water Master Plan ♦Review Water Master Plan details ♦Evaluate financing options � Task Force Report ♦Develop consensus & action plan ♦Make recommendation to Council 3 i i Master Plan Improvements Storage Capacity Analysis Total Cost: $42.9 Million *New water supplies $8.4 M mm0 90 FERMI t10 rs ss ss Sssss.££££ *New storage capacity $22 M 7060 £ ,sfs::£,5 <.,.<. "����s;� ®Emergency SO ©Fire 40 ®O erational *Improved delivery system $9.5 M 30 20 10 0 *Public health & safety $3 M Existing Current Need Ultimate Need r 4 Master Plan Improvements Master Plan Improvements Total Cost: $42.9 Million ♦New water supplies $8.4 M ♦ 1995 2006 ♦ 9 Water Wells ♦ 12 Water Wells ♦New storage capacity $22 M ♦ 40.5 MG Storage ♦ 83.5 MG Storage No emergency Emergency storage ♦Improved delivery system $9.5 M storage (1 day/30 MG) ♦Public health & safety $3 M ♦ 21 miles of ♦ 30 miles of transmission lines transmission line 5 Water Storage Capacity Project Construction Phases 90 MG 206,000 ♦PHASE 1 $1.03 M (1995-96) 80 HB Population 200,000 ✓Regulatory compliance 70 193,000 ✓Increase import water capacity 60 i88,600 ✓Delivery system improvements 50 170,100 ao *PHASE II $12.8 M (1996-98) 30 116,000 ✓Seismic retrofit Overmyer Reservoir 20 11,500 ✓New water well (#1) 10 0 ✓New water storage reservoir (16 MG) 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2006 ✓Fire protection improvements 6 Project Construction Phases Water Taslc Force *PHASE III $14.15 M (1998-2001) ✓New water well (#2) ✓Additional water storage (14 MG) .,Transmission line replacement Master Phan Improvements *PHASE IV $14.95 M (2001-2006) Financing ✓New water well (#3) ✓Completion of water storage (13 MG) I ✓Transmission line replacement 7 i i Financial Elements Capital Improvement Surcharge *Capital Improvement Surcharge "Pay As You Go" All current water customers All Water Service Customers ♦$3 per mo. per unit first year *Capital Facilities Charge plus $.50 per mo. each year New residential development Maximum $5.50 per mo. sixth year *Revenue concurrent with construction phases 8 Comparison of Financing Capital Facilities Charge Plans ♦Pay As You Go New Residential Development Paid over 11 years ♦Increases capital facilities charge $2,400 per residential unit ♦Certificates of Participation ♦Buys into existing system Paid over 35 years ♦Contributes to capital needs ♦Implement immediately 9 Task Force Water Rates Recommendations ♦Adopt prioritized projects list ♦Adopt phased construction schedule ♦Adopt pay as you go finance plan Operations & Maintenance ♦Increase capital facilities charge ♦Begin now , 10 Water Rate Increase Water Rate Increase ♦Needed to fund general operations ♦Independent of Master Plan costs ✓Water cost increases ♦Last increased July 1991 ✓Routine repairs and replacements ✓Water quality program ♦Will be proposed with 95/96 budget ✓Preventive maintenance ♦To avoid future budget shortfalls i i 11 Requested Council Actions ♦Accept Water Task Force Report ♦Direct staff to prepare: ✓Ordinances ✓Resolutions ✓Public Hearing Notices ✓Rate Information & Proposal 12 i COORU TRID , ng nay �Yi�s'soc`a[i'oi witli Bartle Welts Associates March ,1199-5 ' RECEIVED FROM DPw— WA- � AND MADE:A PAR" (,F-THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL NG OF 3 -X7- 15 OFFICE.OF 7HE CITY CLERK ® CONNIE BRO&WAY,CITY CLERK A30YLE ErAff17EER//7G C0MJ-0 Jg7X7/7 CONSULTING ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS ' 1501 Quail Street P.O. Box 3030 714/476-3300 Newport Beach, CA 92658-9020 FAX 714/721 - 7142 Mr. Les Jones, Director of Public Works March 27, 1995 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 ' Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan 1995 Update ' Boyle Engineering is pleased to submit to you the final 1995 Update of the Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan. It has been a pleasure working with you, Jeff Renna, and the Water Task Force members in arriving at consensus on this Plan. We look forward to further assisting the City in the implementation of the Master Plan Capital Improvement Program. ' Boyle Engineering Corporation oQppF ESS/py William R. Everest, PE j LL fVa.: 322 Principal Engineer Exp. Ji/3Q/37 CiV11. cc: Jeff Renna, Water Operations Manager or cAIL Water Task Force Members Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer ' 0C-H10-250-10/jones.oc23/tt 1 Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan 1 Update = 1995 1 1 City of Huntington Beach Client Representatives Les Jones, Director of Public 1 Works Jeff Renna,Water Operations ' Manager Water Task Force Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer 1 Boyle Engineering Corporation 1 Project Manager William R. Everest, PE 1 Bartle Wells Associates 1 Principal Lora Stovall 1 March 1995 SOWLE 1501 Quail Street, Newport Beach, California 92660 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary.............................................................l What Planning Has Been Done To Date?......................I Why Does Huntington Beach Need a Water Master Plan ' Update?..........................................................................I How Will the Proposed Program Be Implemented?......2 ' How Will Huntington Beach Pay for the Necessary Improvements?...............................................................4 What Happens Next? .....................................................7 Water System Master Plan Update......................................8 Background Studies.......................................................8 1 System Deficiencies.......................................................8 ' Capital Improvements..................................................10 Program Cost Estimates...............................................12 Water System Financing Plan Update...............................16 Introduction..................................................................16 ' Project Costs................................................................16 Operating Costs............................................................18 ' Revenue Estimates.......................................................23 Capital Facilities Charge..............................................23 ' Financing Plan.............................................................27 Evaluation of Financing Alternatives..........................31 1 1 1 LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 1 Project Costs-Water Task Force- Prioritized Program............................................3 Table 2 Capital Improvement Projects..........................11 ' Table 3 Project Cost Estimates.....................................13 Table 4 Project Annual O&M Cost Estimates..............15 Table 5 Water Capital Improvement Program ' Inflated Timeline Costs ($1,000).....................17 Table 6 Water Utility Expense Projection($1,000)......20 Table 7 Water Utility Cost Projection($1,000)............21 1 Table 8 Master Plan Projects: Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs, Incremental 1 O&M Increase ($ in Thousands) With Allowance for Inflation....................................22 Table 9 Water Utility Water Service Charge 1 Revenue Estimate.............................................24 Table 10 Water Utility Revenue Estimate ......................25 Table 11 Water Utility Allocation of Costs to Growth...27 ' Table 12 Water Utility Calculation of Water Capital Facilities Charge..................................28 Table 13 Water Utility Building Activity and Valuations ($ in thousands) .............................29 Table 14 Capital Projects-Fee Alternative Financing Plans................................................33 ' Table 15 Comparison of Financing Methods- Water Master Plan............................................34 ' Table 16 Plan B Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan................. ......................35 Table 17 Plan A Financing Methods for Water System ' Master Plan......................................................36 Table 18 Bonds-OOP's Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan...............................37 1 Table 19 No Capital Improvements................................3 8 i 1 i 1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1 Comparison of Financing Options 1 Capital Surcharge Requirements.....................6 Figure 1 Huntington Beach Water Storage Analysis 1 (follows page)............................................10 Figure 2 CIP Facilities by Category (follows page)............................................12 Figure 3 CIP Facilities by Phase 1 (follows page)............................................12 1 1 1 Executive Summary ' What Planning Has Been Done To Date? Since completion of the June 1988 Water System Master Plan by Boyle Engineering Corporation(Boyle), other related documents have been prepared: Water System Master Plan Supplement(Boyle, April ' 1990); Financing Plan(Bartle Wells Associates [BWA]-August 1990); Draft Financing Plan Update(BWA-November 1992); and Final Draft ' Master Plan/Financing Plan Update (BoyleBWA -December 1993). These reports have been prepared to provide guidance to the City regarding physical system improvements to offset existing and future deficiencies,together with a financing strategy to implement the program. ' The Water Task Force(WTF)was formed in December 1993 and has met approximately monthly to date with the following results: 1) refinement of the capital improvements program, 2) evaluation of ' alternative financing strategies and selection of a preferred approach, and 3) development of implementation program procedures. Why Does Huntington Beach Need a Water Master Plan Update? This is a very reasonable question. Residents' water needs are being ' met and they don't feel the impact of a deficient system in their normal daily lives. Also, most of the current system is underground or out of sight. However, the city's system is deficient in many areas, most of which are not visible to the naked eye and do not impact normal daily water service. A summary of these deficiencies is outlined below: • Because of their proximity to the Newport-Inglewood Fault, existing city reservoirs are vulnerable to earthquake ' damage, and appropriate renovation is required. • The city has no emergency water supply. ♦ During the summer months when water demand is at its peak, the system reservoir water levels are dropping at a drastic rate. • A major reservoir and booster station complex must be constructed to address dropping reservoir levels and ' provide emergency supply. 1 ♦ Aging mains along Beach Boulevard and under the downtown area should be strengthened to maintain ' pressures and flows. ♦ Storage and pumping works in the Sunset Heights area ' must be linked to the rest of the city system for fire protection by construction of the Surfside Connector. ' ♦ More wells must be drilled to decrease reliance on imported water, and some wellwater requires treatment. ' ♦ A major transmission main is old and incapable of moving water effectively through the city; it should be replaced. ♦ Improvements are required for system reliability (corrosion control, leak detection, safety and security systems, and power source backup). How Will the Proposed Program Be Implemented? p 9 p The required capital improvements necessary to resolve these deficiencies were originally delineated in the 1988 Master Plan and ' have been refined in 1990 and 1993 to reflect the following: 1) inclusion of both capital and operating costs, 2) changing economic conditions affecting construction costs, 3) facilities recently ' constructed/dedicated by developers,and 4) improvements already funded from reserves. The WTF has developed several criteria to evaluate an effective level of water service in the city: 1) public safety, 2) public health, 3) system reliability, 4) existing infrastructure maintenance and ' protection, and 5) capacity for growth. These criteria has been used to develop a prioritized and staged capital improvements program to address the deficiencies. The program is summarized in Table 1. 2 Table 1 Project Costs -Water Task Force-Prioritized Program ' Project Project Cost Priority Project Description Number(a) M(b) ' 1 System Improvements(`) 6 205,000 2 Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 3 330,000 ' 3 Chlorine Room Modifications 12 200,000 4 1 MWD Import Station Modifications 11 300,000 SUBTOTAL -Phase I 1,035,000 (d) ' S Overmyer Reservoir Structural 4 2,500,000 Improvements 6 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage I(e) 2 8,500,000 7 Sunset/Surfside (PCH Crossing I) 1 500,000 ' 8 Well Number 1 5 19300,000 SUBTOTAL - Phase II 12,800,000 9 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage 2 7,000,000 II(e) 10 PCH Crossing II 1 450,000 11 Well Number 2 5 1,300,000 12 Energy Backup System(existing wells) 5 1,600,000 13 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage I 9 2,900,000 14 Corrosion Control - Stage I 10 900,000 ' SUBTOTAL - Phase III 14,150,000 15 PCH Crossing III 1 450,000 16 Well Number 3 5 1,300,000 ' 17 Water Treatment Facilities [2 existing 5 2,900,000 wells] ' 18 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage 9 2,900,000 II 19 Corrosion Control - Stage II 10 900,000 ' 20 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage 2 6,500,000 III(e) ' SUBTOTAL - Phase IV 14,950,000 TOTAL 42,935,000 ce> From December 1993 Final Draft Update. (b) Includes construction,technical services(12 percent),contingencies(18 percent),and city project management/administration;based on Spring 1995 cost levels. Includes cathodic protection,leak detection,and security systems. (d) Assume matched by Water Reserve Funds. (e) Includes new transmission main. 3 ' Operating costs have also been projected and include the following elements: 1) current O&M expenses, 2) water purchase costs, 3) inflation, 4) O&M costs related to capital projects, and 5) capital replacement, cash and in-lieu tax. ' How Will Huntington Beach Pay for the Necessary Improvements? The City's 1994-95 water revenue budget includes monthly fixed ' charges based on meter size and number of dwelling units ($5.0 million),water sales ($11.3 million), and other income ($1.0 million), for.a total of$17.3 million.No major capital facilities charge or ' connection charge on new customers is currently assessed by the City. The recommended facilities primarily benefit existing customers but ' also include capacity to serve new development. Existing facilities will also serve and benefit new customers, since the expanded system cannot operate alone. A Capital Facilities Charge (CFC) has been developed reflecting this, and amounts to $2,400 per equivalent dwelling unit(EDU), comprised of master plan and service costs allocated to growth($1,000/EDU) and unit value of the existing facilities ($1,400/EDU). Three alternative financing strategies have been developed by the ' WTF: 1) Plan A - "Pay As You Go," 2) Plan B - "Pay As You Go" plus the CFC, 3) Plan C - Bonds/COP's. • Plan A- "Pay As You Go" - This plan uses a maximum rate increase of$5.50 per month per residential meter to pay for all construction costs within an eleven year period of time. An initial ' rate increase of$4.00 per month in 1995 and 1996 and is increased annually by 50 cents per month to the maximum of$5.50 in 1994- 2005,then drops to $2.00 per month. • Plan B -"Pay As You Go Plus CFC" - This is the same Plan A described above except that the connection fee for newly ' developed units would increase from the current$60.00 per unit to $2,400 per unit by 1996. The initial rate adjustment for residential customers is thereby decreased to $3.00 per month in 1995, ' increasing annually by 50 cents per month to the maximum of $5.50 during 2000-2005, then dropping to $2.00 per month. ' 4 ' • Bonds-COP's Bonds-COP's would result in payment for the facilities over 35 years compared to the eleven year financing of ' Plan A or B. Residential monthly rate increases would be$1.50 in 1996, increased progressively to 5.00 in 2003. The $5.00 rate would continue until the first bond issue is retired in 2031.New ' connection fees would be the same as Plan B. The annual revenue projections of Plan Bond C is shown on ' Figure ES-1. FIGURE ES-1 - _ COMPARISON OF FINANCING OPTIONS Capital Surcharge Requirements t $6.00 BONDS/COPS $5.00 a_ $4.00 + w $3.00 . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . _ . : . . . . . . . . ..}.�. J a ! . "PAY AS..YOU GO" a $2.00 a -t-�- - U . $1 .00 $0.0 949598979899000102030405060708091011 1213141516171819202122232425 26272829303132 FISCAL YEAR 6 r 1 1 ' What Happens Next? ' The following program is recommended for implementation of the City's Water System Master Plan/Financing Plan Update: ' 1. Present Final Update Report to City Council for adoption(March- April 1995). ' 2. Determine need for water rate increases to fund general operations and avoid future budget shortfalls(April - June 1995). 3. Prepare ordinances,resolutions, and public hearing notices for Council consideration and adoption(June -August 1995). 4. Complete the site evaluation and select site(s) for the Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster(August- October 1995). 5. Prepare a Preliminary Design Report for the Phase I facilities (November 1995 - February 1996). r r r r r r r r r Water System Master Plan Update Y p Background Studies ' Boyle prepared a Water System Master Plan in June 1988 for the City, which included analysis of water supply alternatives, existing and projected water demands, computer modeling of the water distribution ' system, delineation of existing and future system deficiencies, description of a capital improvement program consisting of several projects,project construction cost estimates and recommended action items for the City to continue provision of adequate water service and keep pace with growth. In April 1990, Boyle prepared a supplement to the 1988 Master Plan in response to the City's request to provide updated information reflecting: higher costs due to inflation; revised project priorities; inclusion of annual costs for operation, maintenance ' and administration; and preparation of a master schedule for program implementation over a 6-year period. In August 1990, BWA prepared a comparison Water System Financing Plan, which is discussed later. In October 1991, the City authorized Boyle to prepare a Water System Master Plan/Financing ' Plan Update, which is the subject of this document. A final draft of the Update was submitted in December 1993. System Deficiencies Engineering studies in the 1988, 1990 and 1993 reports all have ' concluded that the City water system is deficient in several areas: ■ Insufficient supply to meet existing and ultimate demands, r ■ Inability to meet fireflow requirements in the Peter's Landing/Surfside area, e ■ Insufficient storage and pumping capacity to meet peak hour or emergency demands, ' ■ Reservoirs subject to potential earthquake damage, ■ Need to strengthen distribution systems for effective water service ' along Beach Boulevard and the downtown area, ■ Need to replace a major transmission pipeline for better water ' movement through the City, 8 1 ' Required upgrading to maintain system reliability and safety. ' Supply Current supply sources providing water to the City (imported water ' from MWD and groundwater wells) are insufficient to meet existing demands, notwithstanding recent conservation benefits. This can be overcome by construction of 2 new wells, 2 water treatment plants for existing wells, and system reliability improvements. This program replaces the West Orange County Wellfield Project proposed in 1988 1 but no longer available to the City. No other supply sources are required to meet existing deficiencies. Future supply deficiencies are proposed to be met by construction of a third new well to supplement ' the maximum available groundwater supply. Participation in the Green Acres Reclaimed Water Project(GAP) is also needed to supplement these sources. Fireflow Requirements Although the existing system is generally adequate to meet required fire flows, the system is not sufficient to completely meet fire flow conditions in the Sunset/Surfside area and at the Peter's Landing area in Huntington Harbour. To remedy this situation,the City needs to obtain the site for the proposed Sunset Heights booster station/reservoir, and build the Sunset Beach/Surfside pipelines to interconnect with the rest of the City system. The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement calls for developer construction of the Sunset ' Heights booster station/reservoir. Peaking Requirements ' The present water system is deficient in being able to meet demands under peak hour conditions, which usually occur at the height of the ' summer season. Under previous such situations, reservoir levels were dropping drastically, and booster stations were stressed. In addition, the City has no emergency water storage which would be required following an earthquake or an MWD supply outage. A major reservoir/booster/transmission facility needs to be constructed in the southeast section of the City (referred to the Talbert Valley 9 Complex)to address these needs. Since this is the most costly project in the program, it should be phased, initially to meet the majority of ' existing deficiencies, and later expanded to meet requirements of maximum buildout. City water storage requirements are summarized on Figure 1. Earthquake Renovation The City is unfortunate in being traversed by the Newport-Inglewood Fault. Structural renovation of the City's existing Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs is required to successfully withstand a major earthquake on that fault. Peck Reservoir improvements are now being implemented; Overmyer Reservoir seismic retrofit improvements are included in this program. Other Improvements To improve existing system reliability,the following improvements ' are also required: 1) strengthening of existing distribution systems along Beach Boulevard and the downtown area, 2) replacement of a major transmission main for effective conveyance of water from the principal supply areas to the major demand areas, 3) corrosion control, leak detection, safety and security systems, energy backup at existing wells, MWD connection improvements, and chlorine facility ' improvements. Capital Improvements In order to overcome the above-discussed deficiencies, a capital improvement program has been developed consisting of the 20 projects shown on Table 2. These projects have been listed in priority order and grouped in four phases in terms of the severity of the deficiency, together with the need to solve present deficiencies prior to providing capacity for maximum ' needs. It is expected that these projects would be constructed in a phased program over an 11-year period (1995-2006). 10 Buil"ligun�Beach ' w4ters- OrBU��a1181yS_�S� 140 12 C 1 = 1Q 1 ' E 8 Emergency 1 • 66- Fire Operational ' W � t 1 Existing: Ultimate.: Table 2 ' Capital Improvement Projects ' Priority Project Description ' 1 City-Wide System Improvements 2 Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 3 Chlorine Room Modifications 4 1 MWD Import Station Modifications SUBTOTAL - Phase I ' 5 Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements 6 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage I ' 7 Sunset/Surfside(PCH Crossing I) 8 Well No. 1 SUBTOTAL -Phase II 9 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage II 10 PCH Crossing II ' 11 Well No. 2 12 Energy Backup System(existing wells) 13 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage I 14 Corrosion Control - Stage I ' SUBTOTAL - Phase III 15 PCH Crossing III ' 16 Well No. 3 17 Water Treatment Facilities [2 existing wells] 18 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage II ' 19 Corrosion Control - Stage II L Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage III ' SUBTOTAL - Phase IV 1 ' 11 ' The location of these projects are shown by category and by phase in Program Cost Estimates Prog Figures 2 and 3, respectively. ' Opinions of probable costs have been prepared for construction of the 20 projects,together with estimates of related technical services and City project management/administration. The costs are presented in Table 3, and are broken down into the major construction elements. Corresponding annual O&M costs for these projects are shown in Table 4. 1 12 ��r #Jig � :� ���, �__i■ m_�I , .,-. Illj' ,. 1� • IIIIIII{ nnyu.11 WEI ,,�•,,� �II � `7 the 1JBE qj,�p p•r,, , ,���'I{�� Jlr I�f �,�IIIIIfJ rr *✓�ifr��`I� rn,�_„��. i�-•- - �111 _L1'I�� •r<i��rrry f( dui � m� ,��;'��'"'� - ���� ti -r G; !s_wil� iL:. _ r. On rllll�,� _ I�:I,i1lE3E■ oom 0 - NEW WATER WELL * - NEW WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR m - NEW PIPELINE IMPROVEMENTm - PIPE CORROSION CONTROL SYSTEM v IMPORT •N MODIFICATION ` 1 �llll IU,m + URI III1l - ��In1�_i_III -Fi�l_ml ri •' \ � III Cwit ,; ) Ul r�^ ZI -. __ ��(�.■11� __ ��_.= w�,�� - . ��!�� +t,�ln�� 'fit ..�. I NO / f - �1117'��I ■� a.�.i� Fri ■Ittl�■_�....� jl .IL Illllll . U1/1,-�sllllll;�■111 11t 'nn�71.•�, I C V � ^--- - }� ���`�,. E,�rnuF� '��f:.!�.��/;llE.�l+.V�i•Itl� .i�a'�=�I —'�? /i��' �,.,,-� Liles; """ �.._., I -- ��Illl�(!� •�' I - 1L1 1 y�. s� 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ' TABLE 3 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES(1) Technical City Project Project Descriptions Services(2) Construction(3) Management(8) Total ' Project 1-System Improvements Cathodic protection survey and improvements 10,000 100,000 Leak detection survey 10,000 ' Security system 10,000 75,000 - ST-Project 1 20,000 185,000 205,000 Project 2-Beach Boulevard and Downtown Pipelines 1,700 11 8-inch main(3 crossings) 15,000 150,000 ],1001.f. 12-inch main 15,000 150,000 - ST-Project 2 30,000 300,000 330,000 Project 3-Chlorine Room Modifications - 200,000 - 200,000 Project 4-MWD Import Station Modifications - 300,000 - 300,000 ' Project 5-Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements Earthquake Renovation of Overmyer Reservoir ' ST-Project 5 90,000 2,410,000 - 2,500,000 Project 6-Talbert Valley Complex-Stage I Land Cost 990,000 20 cfs booster station 90,000 800;000 ' 16 MG reservoir 450,000 4,500,000 6,500 11.30-inch transmission main 150,000 1,500,000 ST-Project 6 690,000 7,800,000 20,000 8,500,000 Project 7 Sunset Beach/Surfside Connectors PCH Crossing No. 1 40,000 450,000 500,000 9 cfs booster station (5) (5) 9 MG reservoir (5) (5) Drill and equip 1 well (5) (5) 14,000 I.f.20-inch main (5) (5) - ST Project 7 40,000 450,000 10,000 500,000 Project 8-Drill and Equip Well No.1 150,000 1,140,000 10,000 1,300,000 ' Project 9-Talbert Valley Complex Stage II Land Cost 600,000 20 cfs booster station 90,000 800,000 14 MG reservoir 400,000 4,000,000 ' 4,000 I.f.30-inch transmission main 100,000 1,000,000 ST-Project 9 590,000 6,400,000 10,000 7,000,000 Project 10-PCH Crossing No.2 50,000 400,000 - 450,000 ' Project 11-Drill and Equip Well No.2 150,000 1,140,000 10,000 1,300,000 Project 12-Energy Backup System(existing wells) 150,000 1,440,000 10,000 1,600,000 Project 13-Transmission Main Replacement-Stage I 275,000 2,625,000 - 2,900,000 13,200 l.f.24-inch main ' Project 14-Pipeline Corrosion Control-Stage I 150,000 750,000 - 900,000 Corrosion control of transmission lines Project 15-PCH Crossing No.3 50,000 400,000 - 450,000 Project 16-Drill and Eauip Well No.3 150,000 1,140,000 10,000 1,300,000 Project 17-Water Treatment Plants(2 existinglls)we 280,000 1 2,600,000 1 20,000 1 2,900,000 1 13 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TABLE 3(continued) PROJECT COST ESTIMATES(1) ' Technical City Project Project Descriptions Services(2) Construction(3) Management(8) Total 8-Transmission Main Replacement- 275,000 2,625,000 — 2,900,000 13,200 11-24-inch main Project 19-Corrosion Control-Stagg II 150,000 250,000 — 900,000 Project 20-Talbert Valley Complex-Stage III 20 cfs booster station 90,000 800,000 13 MG reservoir 400,000 4,200,000 5,30011 20-inch transmission main 100,000 900,000 ST-Project 20 1 590,000 1 5,900,000 1 10,000 1 6,500,000 TOTAL 3,880,000 38,945,000 110,000 42,935,000 ' Costs based on Spring 1995 levels (2)Estimate is 12 percent of construction estimate(not including 18 percent contingencies) (3)Estimate includes 18 percent contingencies (4)Construction of expanded facilities not included in 11-year program 1 (5)Cost funded by agreement with Developer or other Agency (8)Includes contract administration labor costs 14 ' Table 4 Project Annual O&M Cost Estimates(l) ' O&M Project Project Description ($/year) 1 City-Wide System Improvements 75,000 2 Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 2,000 ' 3 Chlorine Room Modifications -(2) 4 MWD Import Station Modifications 10,000 5 Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements -(2) ' 6 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage 1 225,000 7 Sunset/Surfside (PCH Crossing I) 25,000 ' 8 Well Number 1 125,000 9 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage II 200,000 10 PCH Crossing II 25,000 ' 11 Well Number 2 300,000 12 Energy Backup System(existing wells) (2) 13 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage I -(2) 14 Corrosion Control - Stage I 10,000 15 PCH Crossing III 25,000 16 Well Number 3 125,000 17 Water Treatment Facilities [2 existing wells] 300,000 18 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage II (2) 19 Corrosion Control - Stage II 10,000 20 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage III 175,000 TOTAL 1,632,000 Costs based on Spring 1995 levels; includes energy where applicable. (2) No change from current annual cost. 15 Water System Financing Plan Update Introduction ' In 1990 Bartle Wells Associates (BWA) completed a financing plan to implement the water system master plan prepared for Huntington Beach by Boyle. The 1990 study was designed to finance water system improvements to current existing deficiencies and accommodate anticipated growth and development. The 1990 financing plan recommended increases in the City's water rates, adoption of a capital facilities fee for new connections to the water system of$2,525 per 3/4-inch meter or equivalent, and the use of debt(certificates of participation)to finance the improvements. The plan was further refined in 1993. This section updates and revises the ' financing plan based on the current master plan update, which is focused on a"pay as you go" approach. Project Costs The prioritized project list from Table 3 has been broken down into the four phases as developed by the Water Task Force (WTF), and spread out over the 11-year construction period, to minimize the financial impact of the program. Table 5 shows recommended projects with a total inflated cost of$54.9 million based on 4.5 percent inflation per year. Projects are listed in priority order and scheduled during the 1I- year period 1995 through 2006. Construction priorities are listed to solve critical water system problems within its financing capacity. The largest project is the Talbert Valley Complex, consisting of a reservoir, booster station, and transmission main pipelines to be constructed in three stages. i 1 16 Table 5 Water Capital Improvement Program Inflated Timeline Costs($1,000)(e' Project No. Descriptions 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Total 1 System Improvements 205 205 2 Beach Boulevard/Downtown Pipelines 330 330 3 Chlorine Room Modifications 200 200 4 MWD Import Station Modifications 300 300 SUBTOTAL-Phase I 1,035 1,035 5 Overmyer Reservoir Structural Improvements 2,613 2,613 6 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage I 4,368 5,135 9,503 7 Sunset/Surfside(PCH Crossing I) 595 595 8 Well Number 1 1,550 1,550 SUBTOTAL-Phase II 2,613 4,368 5,135 2,145 14,261 9 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage II 3,579 4,984 8,563 10 PCH Crossing lI 562 562 11 Well Number 2 1,693 1,693 12 Energy Backup System(existing wells) 2,084 2,084 13 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage I 3,776 3,776 14 Corrosion Control- Stage I 1,225 1,225 SUBTOTAL-Phase I11 3,579 5,546 7,553 1,225 17,903 15 PCH Crossing III 612 612 16 Well Number 3 1,769 1,769 17 Water Treatment Facilities 2,314 1,706 4,020 18 Transmission Main Replacement- Stage Il 4,125 4,125 19 Corrosion Control- Stage II 1,338 1,338 20 Talbert Valley Reservoir/Booster- Stage III 1 4,458 5,435 9,893 SUBTOTAL-Phase IV 4,695 5,831 5,796 5,435 21,757 TOTAL 1,035 2,613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,546 7,553 5,920 5,831 5,796 5,435 54,956 [(a) Compound inflation assumed at 4.5 percentlyear. Operating Costs tThe water system's 1994-95 operating budget is about$17 million. These costs are expected to increase over time for a number of reasons: • Some of the recommended projects have associated O&M costs, and will result in incremental cost increases as the projects are completed. • Inflation will increase costs. • Groundwater development and imported water purchase costs are projected to increase significantly. Tables 6, 7, and 8 project various aspects of operating costs. Table 6 projects the increase in current O&M costs. Table 7 deals with costs of water, both purchased and pumped. Table 8 addresses increases in costs related to the recommended projects. Table 6 shows the projection of existing O&M costs for the nine-year period from 1994-95 through 2002-03. It includes purchased and pumped water costs developed in Table 7. The projection assumes a 1 percent annual increase in active services and therefore in water production and sales. In summary, annual expense increases, excluding any impact of the master plan projects, are projected as follows: 1995-95 7.0% 1996-97 6.3% 1997-98 - 2002-03 5.0 - 5.9% Water Cost Projection The system's largest expenses are those for purchased water and pumped water. The city relies primarily on pumped water, supplemented with imported water from Metropolitan Water District L3 r . t r of Southern California(MWD). Table 7 projects water costs based on budgeted 1994/95 quantities and costs per acre-foot. Pumped water costs include the cost of utilities as well as applicable replenishment assessment(RA) imposed by OCWD. Pumped water costs are based on: • City estimates of quantities available rCurrent utility costs inflated 5 percent annually • RA rates inflated 5 percent annually rPurchased water costs are based on projected rates estimated by MWD for noninterruptible water. The projections assume that MWD develops no new firm revenue sources after 1994/95 (i.e., MWD Case 3). Implementation of new revenue sources such as standby and connection charges will slightly reduce the rate increase, projected at $472 per acre-foot in 1994/95, and increasing to $720, or 52 percent, in 2003. The cost per acre-foot includes a surcharge levied by Municipal Water District of Orange County of$3.50 in 1994/95 and increased at 5 percent per year in subsequent years. Table 7 shows that purchased water costs per acre-foot are significantly higher than costs for pumped water, but such purchases are required to meet system demand not available from pumped water production. O&M Costs, New Capital Projects rBoyle estimated annual O&M expenses resulting from the new capital projects. Table 8 shows such costs starting at project completion including inflation to that date. New O&M expenses begin in 1995/96 and increase as projects are completed. By 2005, incremental O&M costs related to the new projects are expected to total $2.3 million. r r 19 l Table 6 Water Utility Expense Projection(S%000) cn 1994►95 1998106 1998197 1097198 111IM9 100010o 2000101 2001102 2002103 Administration Permhexponse $200,oDO $220,000 $240.000 $280,000 S273,000 $288,70D 1113D1,000 $316,100 9331,900 Charges to depts 2,909,e72 2,796,000 2,418.000 2,705,00D 2,750,000 2,948,3D0 3.119,000 3.216,000 3,224,1W All other,adminlstratlon 734,815 W9,000 928,ODO 947,000 994,000 1,044,000 1,098.000 1,151,000 1,208,000 Planning 393,890 325,000 358,000 366,000 396,000 428,000 482,000 409,000 539,WD Production Purchased water(2) 3,500,000 3,351,ODO 3.010,000 4.619,000 4,e84,000 4,868,000. 5.107,000 6.352,000 5,818,000 Utilities 875,000 908,000 081,000 1,020,000 1,082.OW 1,147.000 1,217.000 1,291,000 1,389,000 Pumptax(3) 1,550,000 2,169,000 2,302,000 2,442.000 2,591,000 2.748,000 2.915,000 3,092,000 3,279,000 Capital outlay/equipment replacement 387,800 383,000 352,000 183.000 31S,000 331.000 346.000 305,000 383,000 Program reimbursement (312,000) (332.000) (336.000) (344,000) (381.OW) (379,000) (398,000) (418,000) (439.000) All other,production 1,541,515 1,619,0D0 1,700,000 1,784,D00 1,874,000 1,968,ODD 2,086,OOD 2.169,000 2,277,000 Distribution 1,4oa,779 1,s2B4O00 1,668,000 1,655,000 1,821.000 2AW.DW 2,203,000 2,423,000 2,685,000 Water meters 1,183,581 1,232,000 1,288,000 1,30.000 1,481,000 1,829.DW 1.702.000 1,971,000 2,168,000 Water quality 442,946 490,000 512,000 622,000 574,000 831,000 894.000 783.000 839,000 safety 4.000 4,000 5,000 5,000 6,000_ 7,0DO 8,000 9AOD 101000 Not Expenses(4) $14,800,000 $15,700,000 $19,300.000 $17,410,000 i10,480A00 $10,660,000 $20,030.000 $22,200,000 $23,470,000 Annual increase. NA, 7.0% 63% 510% 5.9% 5.4% 5.7% 5.7% 6.9% (1)Assumes annual growth of 1%In active services,water production &water sales. (2)Beginning in 1993194.based upon MWD projected rates(case 3). (3)Beginning in 1993/94.based upon OCWD rate Inflated at 5%per year. (4)Excludes in-Lieu tax,depreclatlon,&Capital project costs. TABLES,XLS 20 Table 7 Water Utility Cost Projection ($1,000) (4) 1994195 1995100 i>i99197 1997120 1888199 1999100 2000/01 2001102 2002103 Purchased water Acre feet(AF) 7,000 7,100 7,200 7,300 7,400 7,500 7,600 7,700 7,800 Prloe/AF from MWD(1) $500 $472 $543 $619 $633 $649 $672 $695 $720 Total purchased water cost $3,600,000 $3.351,000 $3,910,000 $4,510,000 $4,84000 $4,888,000 $5.107,000 $5.352,000 $5.616,000 tPumped water Utll'dies: Acre feet(AF) 28,000 28,300 28,800 28,900 29,200 20,500 29,800 30,100 30,400 Coati AF(2) $31 $32 $34 $35 $37 $39 $41 $43 $45 UtlIItycost $875,000 $905,000 $981,000 $1,020,000 $1,082,000 $1,147,000 $1,217,000 $1,261,000 $1,389,000 Replenishment Assessment(RA); ' Acre feet(AF) 28,000 28,300 20,800 28,90D 29,200 29,500 29,800 30,100 30,400 Cost/AF(3) $60/73 $77 $80 $85 $89 $93 $98 $103 $108 RA cost $1,550.000 $2,169,000 $2,302,000 $2.442,000 $2.501,000 $2,748,000 $2,915.000 $3,092,000 $3.271),000 Total pumped water cost $2,425, P.M. ,263,000 $3,452,000 $3,673,000 -$3,SM,RZ $4,132,000 S4,383,OM $4,648,000 (1)086ed upon MWD estimates(case 3)plus MWOOC surchargo Inflated at 5%per year. (2)Inflated 5%por year (3)OCWD charge (4) Molact oru btu ah TABLES,XLB 21 i r Table 8 Master Plan Projects: Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Costs Incremental 0&M Increase ($ in Thousands) With allowance for inflation Annual PYE Proj�: O&M Cost' 1996 1999 1997 1099 1909 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 inflation factor 4.5% 1.00 1.045 1.092 1.141 1.193 1.246 1.302 1.361 1.422 1.486 1.653 System Improvements $75 $78 $82 $88 $89 $0 $98 $102 $107 $111 $110 iBeach Blvd/Downtown Pipelines $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $2 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 MWD Import Station Modlficatons $10 $10 $11 $11 $12 $12 $13 $14 $14 $15 $16 Ubert fey Compd=Stage 1 $225 $288 $280 S293 $308 $320 $334 5349 Sunset/Sufside PCH t $25 $31 $33 $34 $36 $37 $39 Wal No.1 - $125 $166 $163 $170 $178 $186 $194 Tabert Valey ConVlex Stage Phase 1 $200 $260 $272 $284 $207 $311 PCH Crossln8 II $25 $33 $34 $36 $37 $39 yMel No,2 $300 $408 $427 $446 $486 Corrosion Control Stye 1 $10 $14 $15 $16 PCH CAB■ $25 $36 $37 $39 Wei No.3 WTP r $425 $832 $660 Corroslon Control Stage 1 $10 $10 Ubwt Valley Con$fiex sttW 1 $175 Total $1,632 0 $91 $06 99 1372 $676 $896 $1,343 V1,493 42,160 $2,293 --------------------------------. ...�._ 'Annual O&M cost in IM dolsrs(S in dMusandsll — - 1 r TABLES.XLS 22 Revenue Estimates The City's water revenues come from metered water sales,meter charges, and extra unit charges. The water rate structure consists of a fixed monthly meter charge based on the size of meter and a quantity charge applied to all water used. Additional dwelling units served by one meter also pay flat monthly additional-unit charge. The current monthly meter charge for a 3/4"meter is currently $5.00;rates increase for larger meter sizes. The additional-unit charge is currently $2.50 per unit per month. A current uniform quantity charge of$0.75 per hundred cubic feet applies to all water usage. Water Service Charge Revenue Table 9 shows estimated water service charge revenue of$5.3 million based on charges and meter/unit counts provided by the City. Table 9 also shows estimated current equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) of 70,100 based on equivalent 3/4"meter revenue. Meter charges vary by meter flow capacity or demand on the system. The 48,400 total meters shown in Table 9 place a demand on the system equivalent to 70,100 residential 3/4"meters. An EDU determination provides a standard which facilitates projections of future meter charge and connection charge revenue. 1 Total Revenue Table 10 shows total typical revenue of$17.0 million from all sources including water service charge revenues. Water service charge reve- nues account for about 30 percent of all revenues. Such charges.are usually designed to provide coverage for all fixed system expenses (e.g., administration and planning), as well as for some portion of purchase,production, and other variable expenses. Capital Facilities Charge MPublic water systems typically impose a capital facilities charge or connection charge on new customers connecting to the system. A capital facilities charge is a one-time charge on new development. By 23 TABLE 9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER UTILITY WATER SERVICE CHARGE REVENUE ESTIMATE Current Meter Size Meters/Units Monthly Charge Annual Revenue 3/4" 39,200 $5.00 $2,352,000 1" 5,550 10.00 666,000 1-1/2" 1,400 15.00 252,000 2" 1,850 20.00 444,000 3" 160 50.00 96,000 4" - 140 90.00 151,200 6" 70 180.00 151,200 8" 28 260.00 879360 10" 2 350.00 8,400 Subtotal -Basic Meter Revenue 48,4001a, $4,208,160 Additional Units 35,800 2.50 1,074,000 TOTAL $5,282,160 (a) Equivalent dwelling units(EDUs)=70,100(basic meter revenue_3/4 meter revenue x 39,200 3/4"meters. a 24 ' TABLE 10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER UTILITY REVENUE ESTIMATE Consumption Estimated (hcf) Rate Revenue Percent Metered 14,400,000 $0.75 $10,800,000 63.6 Other sales: Fire service 205,000 1.2 Construction 25,000 0.1 Water service charges(a) 5,282,000 31.1 Subtotal, water sales $16,312,000 96.0 revenue Late charges 300,000 1.8 Interest 300,000 1.8 Other revenue 80,000 0.4 Total revenue $16,992,000 100.0 (a) See Table 8. Source: City water operations estimates. 25 California law, such fees must be based on the capital costs of facilities required to serve new development. Facilities can include both new facilities which must be constructed and existing facilities which benefit new development. Revenues from capital facilities fees must be held and accounted for separately and used for capital purposes related to development. The recommended facilities both include capacity to serve new development and benefit current customers. The existing facilities will also serve and benefit new customers. A capital facilities charge can be developed in a variety of ways, provided that it fairly allocates costs to new development. New development should pay a fee when it connects to the water system which helps to recover costs advanced for additional capacity, as well as to cover the cost of expansion. The City's current rate structure does not include such a charge on new connections, except the nominal, historical development fee($300/acre or$60/unit). Tables 11 and 12 develop a capital facilities charge for Huntington Beach's water system. Table 11 summarizes the master plan projects and costs, and allocates costs which expand the system's service capacity for growth. The growth-related costs are the cost of one new well, the third stage of the Talbert Valley Complex, and projected water costs based on MWD's New Demand Charge. Table 12 calculates a capital facilities charge based on the cost per EDU (3/4-inch meter) of the expansion facilities in Table 11 and the existing facilities. The value of existing facilities is based on the city's financial reports and includes a valuation of all water facilities except water service lines. The net book value of water facilities is adjusted to current cost based on the change in the ENR Construction Cost Index from the date of construction or acquisition to the present. Existing facilities were acquired over a 30-year period; their value was based on an average acquisition date of about 1976. r �r 26 Table 11 Water Utility Allocation of Costs to Growth Item Cost($) Project 16 - Well No. 3 $1,300,000 Project 20 - Talbert Valley Complex- Stage III 6,500,000 Projected Water Costs(a) 7,000,000 Total 14,800,000 cap Based on New Demand Charge proposed by MWDSC(assumed at $1,000/AF). ,. The value of the distribution system is derived from fixed asset records, which reflect a study of the value of the water system as of June 30, 1990. The costs used have been adjusted to the present. The full costs of the master plan projects have been deducted from the calculated value of the system, because expansion costs per EDU have been separated out and the balance of the costs will be paid for by all customers. The estimated system capacity was based on population projections which were used as the basis of projecting water needs. The ratio of population to EDUs accounts for nonresidential accounts. Financing Plan The financing plan is based on development of cash flow projections including the recommended projects, O&M costs, capital facilities charges, and water rates. The plan indicates the need for new fees and higher charges. The projection also incorporates an allowance for new development, both in the generation of capital facilities charges and in an increase in water sales related to the increase in total customers. Growth: Prior engineering reports and financing plans have included projections which have included growth estimates based on past trends or development projections. Table 13, however, shows a dramatic drop in actual building activity during the last four years, from 1,400 27 TABLE 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER UTILITY CALCULATION OF WATER CAPITAL FACILITIES CHARGE Master Plan Facilities Costs allocated to growth( ) $14,800,000 Additional capacity 14,500 (EDUs) Cost per EDU $1,020 Existing Facilities Asset Original Cost Land $391,000 Buildings 971,000 Machinery, equipment 53,102,000 54,464,000 Less depreciation (24,564,000) Net value 29,900,000 Adjusted to current value(2) 67,389,000 Distribution system(3) Value as of 6/30/90 99,095,000 Adjusted to current value 104,291,000 Total value, existing 171,680,000 facilities Less master plan costs (54,956,000) Total value for charge 116,724,000 calculation Total capacity (EDUS)(4) 84,600 Value per EDU 1,380 Recommended capital $2,400 facilities charge ($/EDU) (1) See Table 10. (2) Adjusted based on change in ENR index from time of acquisition to Spring 1995. (3) Based on City study. (4) Current EDU's of 70,100 plus projected 14,500 EDU's. (5) See Table 5. 28 Table 13 r Water Utility Building Activity and Valuations ($ In thousands) e + 1087 f 1988 1989 1000 1991 1992 1993 1994 Single 402 885 226 91 74 134 213 165 Multiple 584 544 267 114 79 19 12 17 Totals 908 1,409 493 205 153 153 225 182 • • �� � 1987 1988 1989 1 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Residential $93,627 $193,468 $73,710 $38,783 $40,600 $23,227 $41,795 $41,017 Commercial $7,283 $27,489 $31,674 $8,294 $1,836 $28,111 $15,490 $17,420 Industrial $12.407 $5,35D $4,240 $2,815 $642 $8,109 $5,538 $5,282 All Other $22.15 $17,096 $19.113 S15,365 113,284 $30. 54 S30,5813 $25.46D Totals $135 455 $243 403 $128 737 $65 237 $58162 $89 501 $93 411 $89179 r r r r� r TABLES.XLS 29 total dwelling units in 1988 to 182 in 1994. This pattern is, of course, not unique to Huntington Beach, but reflects economic conditions generally in the state. Accordingly, growth estimates used in subsequent revenue projections have been limited to 100 EDUs through 1996, with a gradual increase to 300 EDUs by 2000. • The City can use a variety of financing methods for cost recovery of the Water Master Plan capital improvement program. Three alternative plans have been identified for detailed evaluation: Plan A- "Pay As You Go" Plan B -"Pay As You Go"Plus CFC Plan C -Bonds/COP's The recent activities of the WTF have focused the financingplan toward a"pay as you go" strategy, rather than the earlier approach, based on the use of Certificates of Participation(COP) supported by water revenues. Bond Issues: The bond issue analysis assumed a 35-year issue sold at a net interest cost of 6.5 percent with a 10 percent reserve fund and an allowance for issuance costs. Based on these assumptions each$10 million of project costs would require a debt issue of$11.15 million and an annual payment of about $988,000. The components of the debt issue are shown below: Construction fund $10,000,000 Reserve fund(10%) 1,115,000 Issuance cost allowance (2-1/2%) 279,000 Interest earnings during construction (244,000) TOTAL $11,150,000 Average annual payment(6.5%, 35 years) $806,000 Less: Earnings on reserve fund (45.000) NET $ 761,000 30 Bond size estimates shown above were used to determine required bond issue and debt service costs for the capital construction program. Three bond issues were assumed, as summarized below: First Second Third Issue Issue Issue Total Date 1996 1999 2002 Bond issue size ($1,000) $13,000 $22,000 $22,000 $57,000 IAnnual debt service ($1,000) 1,048 1,773 1,773 4,593 Pay As You Go Approach. Because of the high financing costs and negative customer perceptions related to bond issues and other debt financing instruments,the alternative of a"Pay As You Go" approach was also evaluated. The approach is based on implementation of a new Capital Projects Fee to be assessed monthly,to finance the program. Gradual increases in the existing meter charges, extra unit charges, and consumption charges would also be required to cover all expenses. This approach was evaluated with and without the new CFC. Evaluation of Financing Alternatives Calculations have been made to compare the three financing options proposed, as described below: Plan A- 'Tay As You Go" -This plan uses a maximum rate increase of$5.50 per month per residential meter to pay for all construction costs within the 11-year period of time. An initial rate increase of $4.00 per month in 1995 is increased annually by $.50 per month to the maximum of$5.50 in 1999,then a drop to $2.00 in 2006 and thereafter. 31 Plan B -"Pay As You Go" -This is the same as Plan A described above except that the connection fee for newly developed units CFC would increase from the current$60.00 per unit to $2,400 per unit in 1995. The initial rate adjustment for residential customers would be thereby decreased to $3.00 per month in 1995, increasing annually by $.50 per month to the maximum of$5.50 during 2000-2006,then to $2.00 thereafter. Plan C - Bonds/COP's-COP's would result in payment for the facilities over 35 years compared to the 11-year financing of Plan A or B. Residential monthly rate increases would be $1.50 in 1996, increased to $2.50 in 1999, $4.00 in 2002, and $5.00 in 2003. The $5.00 rate would continue until the first bond issue is retired in 2025, then drop gradually to $2.00 in 2031. A schedule of the Capital Projects Fee for the three plans is shown in Table 14, and an economic comparison of the three plans is presented in Table 15. As shown, Plan B (Pay As You Go Plus CFC) has the lowest net present value of the three plans. Total revenue requirements for Plan C (Bonds/COP's)would be about 50 percent greater than either Plans A or B. Plan B is therefore the recommended financing approach for the program. Projected Revenue and Expenses. Cash flow projections have been prepared through the year 2006, and are shown as follows: Table 16 - Plan B - Pay As You Go Plus CFC Table 17 -Plan A- Pay As You Go Table 18 -Plan C - Bonds/COP's \ Table 19 -No Capital Improvements As shown in Table 19, gradual increases are required for the meter charge, extra unit charge, and consumption charge even if no capital improvements are made. All of the cash flow projections assume a beginning cash balance of approximately $5.0 million. A$3.7 million reserve is provided by Plan B as a minimum needed to project the '. financial integrity of the utility. �2 Table 14 Capital Projects Fee-Alternative Financing Plans Monthly Rate($) Year Plan A Plan B Plan C 1995 $4.00 $3.00 $0.00 1996 $4.00 $3.50 $1.50 1997 $4.50 $4.00 $1.50 1998 $5.00 $4.50 $1.50 1999 $5.50 $5.00 $2.50 2000 $5.50 $5.50 $2.50 2001 $5.50 $5.50 $2.50 2002 $5.50 $5.50 $4.00 2003 $5.50 $5.50 $5.00 2004 $5.50 $5.50 $5.00 2005 $5.50 $5.50 $5.00 2006 $2.00 $2.00 $5.00 2007-2031 $2.00 $2.00 $5.00 33 Table 15 -Comparison of Fin ancing Motltiod9-Water Master Plan Plan A Pay As You tao Not Present Monthly Cumulative Value of All Year Rate Revenue Revenue New Revenue 1996 $4.00 $5.120.000 $5,120,000 ('IOD&A03f) i980 $4.00 $5,285,750 $10,405,750 i897 $4.60 $6,008,387 $15,412,111 1998 $5.00 $8,870,530 $23,052,047 1999 $5.50 $7,424,330 $30,500,970 2000 $6.50 $7,447,739 $37,064,715 2001 $6.60 $7,470,583 $45,426,278 p, g 2002 $5.50 $7,388,203 $52,813,481 2003 $5.50 $7,450,967 $80,204,440 S72 2004 $5.50 $7,324,818 $67,589,285 2005 $5.50 $7,349,740 $74,030,014 2008 $2.00 $2,59TA33 $77,636,347 2007-2031 $2.00 $65,071,022 $142,607,389 Plan -Pay As You Co Phis CF i Monthly Cumulative Year Rate Revenue Revenue 1995 $3.00 $3,700,000 3.700,000 Igoe $3.50 $4,720,250 $6,510,290 1997 $4.00 $5,438,542 $13,965,702 1998 $4.50 $6,207,714 $20,253.505 1999 $6.00 $7,057,373 $27,310,878 2000 $5.50 $7,597,434 $36,208,312 2001 $6.50 $8,052,743 643,261,065 lima 2002 $5.50 $7,099,492 $51,260,547 2003 $5.50 $8,092,821 $69,353,308 2004 $5.50 $7,098,702 07,352,129 ! 2005 $5.50 $8.057,392 $75,409,522 2006 $2.00 $3,360,350 $78,760,880 2007.2031 $2.00 $65,766,003 $144,518,843 Plan C - Bonds/COP's Monthly cumulative Year Rate Revenue Revenue 1995 $0.00 $0 $0 1996 $1.50 $1,098,250 $i,998,250 1987 $1.50 S2,508,001 $4,500,911 1998 $1.50 $2,474,667 $8,981,4e8 1999 $2.50 $3,730,177 $10,711,045 2000 $2,50 $4,643,562 $15,365,197 2001 $2,60 $4,414,141 $10,709,330 Ban_ det•CdP's 2002 $4.00 $6,027,434 $26,708,773 2003 $6.00 $8,144,189 $33,040,982 257 2004 $5.00 $7,818,027 $41,760,089 2005 $5.00 $7,652,449 $40,411,438 2006 $5.00 $7,700,407 $57011,036 2007.2031 $157.632,456 $214,744,392 " Rates decroaso from 5 t0$2 as Bonds are retired - WMP8l1M.XLS 34 in�able Pan FRUTILITY nancing Methods for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTOIBEACH PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs_ 70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,800 71,100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,800 35,900 36,000 36,100 36,300 36,500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37,300 37,500 37,700 37.900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 190 0 Water Rates and Charges: Annual Sales(1000 hcf) 14,400 14,544 14,689 14,836 14,985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16,226 Consumption Chargelhcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Charge/3/4"/mo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Extra Unit Charge/mo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $1,200 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 Monthly Capital Projects Fee $0.00 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $2.00 per EDU Beginning Balance $5,000 $4,897 $5,466 $6,496 $6,768 $6,972 $7,054 $7,666 $6,241 $5,740 $5,783 $4,536 $3,695 Revenue(6100 Water Sales-metered 10,800 10,900 12,200 12,500 13,500 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18,600 19,100 20,100 20,300 Ln Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 to Meter Charge 4,208 6,700 7,600 8,200 8,700 9,300 9,800 10,300 10,300 10,800 10,800 11,300 8,300 Extra Unit Charge 1,074 2,370 2,810 3,250 3,700 4,160 4,620 4,870 5,120 5,370 5,630 5,880 4,320 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 120 240 360 480 600 710 710 710 710 710 720 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 273 325 338 349 353 383 312 287 289 227 185 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 20,835 23,683 25,215 27,348 29,489 31,523 33,363 34,592 36,787 37,570 39,309 34,928 Net bond proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $25,731 $29,150 $31,711 $34,116 $36,460 $38,577 $41,029 $40,833 $42,527 $43,354 $43,845 $38,623 Expenses(5001 Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15,700 16,000 16,300 17,410 18,480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 26,010 Operating-New Facilities 0 0 91 95 99 372 576 895 1,343 1,453 Z150 Z263 Z263 In-Lieu Tax 2,300 3,030 3,430 3,630 3,930 4,230 4,510 4,760 4,950 5,280 5,390 5,660 5,000 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 810 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capital projects-Master Plan 0 1,035 Z613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,546 7,553 5,920 5,831 5,796 5,435 0 Debt service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses $17,100 $20,265 $22,653 $24,943 $27,145 $29,406 $30,911 $34,788 $35,093 $36,744 $38,817 $40,150 $34,085 Ending Balance $4,897 $5,466 $6,496 $6,768 $6,972 $7,054 $7,666 $6,241 $5,740 $5,783 $4,536 $3,695 $4,538 PLANB.XLS 3/27/95 Table 7 -Plan A Financing Methods for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-WATER UTILITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs_ 70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,800 71,100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,800 35,900 36,000 36,100 36,300 36,500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37,300 37,500 37,700 37,900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 190 190 Water Rates and Charges: Annual Sales(1000 hcf 14,400 14,544 14,689 14,836 14,985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16,226 Consumption Charge/hcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Charge/3/4"/mo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Extra Unit Charge/mo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 Monthly Capital Projects Fee $0.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $5.50 $2.00 per EDU Beginning Balance $5.000 $4,897 $6,596 $8,093 $8,824 $9,311 $9,660 $9,822 $7,815 $6,703 $6,104 $4,184 $2,635 Revenue($000) Water Sales-metered 10,800 10,900 12,200 12,500 13,500 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18,600 19,100 20,100 20,300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 rn Meter Charge 4,208 7,600 8,000 8,700 9,100 9,800 9,800 10,300 10,300 10,800 10,800 11,300 8,300 Extra Unit Charge 1,074 2,800 3,020 3,470 3,920 4,380 4,620 4,870 5,120 5,370 5,630 5,880 4,320 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 330 405 441 466 483 491 391 335 305 209 132 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 22,165 24,240 25,785 27,721 29,856 31,073 32,781 33,981 36,145 36,896 38,601 34,175 Net bond proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $27,061 $30,836 $33,877 $36,545 $39,166 $40,733 $42,603 $41,796 $42,848 $43,001 $42,785 $36,809 Expenses($0001 Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15,700 16,000 16,300 17,410 18,480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 26,010 Operating-New Facilities 0 0 91 95 99 372 576 895 1,343 1,453 2,150 2,263 2,263 In-Lieu Tax 2,300 3,230 3,520 3,740 4,020 4,330 4,510 4,760 4,950 5,280 5,390 5,660 5,000 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 810 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capital projects-Master Plan 0 1,035 2,613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,546 7,553 5,920 5,831 5,796 5,435 0 Debt service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses $17,100 $20,465 $22,743 $25,053 $27,235 $29,606 $30,911 $34,788 $35,093 $36,744 $38,817 $40,150 $34,085 Ending Balance $4,897 $6,596 $8,093 $8,824 $9,311 $9,660 $9,822 $7,815 $6,703 $6,104 $4,184 $2,635 $2,725 PLANA.XLS 3/27/95 ab e 1 on s- OP's Financing Methods.for Water System Master Plan CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-WATER UTILITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Customer Data: Equiv dwelling units(EDUs 70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,800 71,100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,800 35,900 36,000 36,100 36,300 36,500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37,300 37,500 37,700 37,900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 190 190 Water Rates and Charges: Annual Sales(1000 hco 14,400 14,544 14,689 14,836 14,985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16,226 Consumption Charge/hof $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Charge/3/4'7mo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.75 Extra Unit Charge/mo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.75 Connection Fee per new Unit $60 $1,200 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 $2,380 Monthly Capital Projects Fee $0.00 $0.00 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $4.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 per EDU Beginning Balance $5,000 $4,897 $2,246 $11,539 $8,305 $4,228 $18,377 $13,494 $6,200 $19,168 $14,769 $8,838 $3,098 Revenue($000) Water Sales-metered 10,800 10,900 12,200 12,500 13,500 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18,600 19,100 20,100 20,300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 U' Meter Charge 4,208 4,200 5,900 6,100 6,100 7,200 7,300 7,700 9,000 10,400 10,400 10,900 11,200 V Extra Unit Charge 1,074 1,080 1,940 2,170 2,400 3,070 3,300 . 3,540 4,450 5,150 5,400 5,660 5,800 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 120 240 360 480 600 710 710 710 710 710 720 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 112 577 415 211 919 675 310 958 738 442- 155 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 17,045 20,952 22,287 23,525 26,161 28,269 29,726 32,620 36,838 37,389 38,904 39,278 Net bond proceeds 0 0 11,661 0 0 19,734 0 0 19,734 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $21,941 $34,860 $33,826 $31,830 $50,123 $46,645 $43,218 $58,554 $56,006 $52,158 $47,741 $42,376 ---------- ------------- Expenses 30001 Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15,700 16,000 16,300 17,410 18,480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 26,010 Operating-New Facilities 0 0 91 95 99 372 576 895 1,343 1,453 Z 150 Z263 Z263 In-Lieu Tax 2,300 2,460 3,050 3,160 3,340 3,750 3,930 4,170 4,650 5,180 5,300 5,560 5,660 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 0 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capital projects.Master Plan 0 1,035 Z613 4,368 5,135 5,724 5,546 7,553 5,920 5,831 5,796 5,435 0 Debt service 0 0 1,048 1,048 1,048 Z821 Z821 Z821 4,593 4,593 4,593 4,593 4,593 Total Expenses $17,100 $19,695 $23,321 $25,521 $27,602 $31,747 $33,152 $37,018 $39,386 $41,237 $43,321 $44,643 $38,528 Ending Balance $4,897 $2,246 $11,539 $8,305 $4,228 $18,377 $13,494 $6,200 $19,168 $14,769 $8,838 $3,098 $3,848 Bond Issue Amounts 13,000 22,000 22,000 BONDS.XLS 3/27/95 M -r m w m _� Mali M M M. r M M � M Table 19-No Capital Improvements CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-WATER UTILITY PROJECTED REVENUE AND EXPENSES Budget Fiscal Year Ending 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007-2031 ---------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- Equiv dwelling units(EDUs- 70,100 70,200 70,300 70,400 70,600 70,800 71,100 71,400 71,700 72,000 72,300 72,600 72,900 Additional Units 35,800 35,900 36,000 36,100 36,300 36,500 36,700 36,900 37,100 37,300 37,500 37,700 37.900 Growth-EDU's 100 100 100 150 200 250 300 300 300 300 300 301 302 -Additional units 100 100 100 150 180 180 180 180 190 190 190 190 190 Annual Sales(1000 hcQ 14,400 14,544 14,689 14,836 14,985 15,135 15,286 15,439 15,593 15,749 15,907 16,066 16.226 Consumption Charge/hcf $0.75 $0.75 $0.83 $0.84 $0.90 $0.95 $1.00 $1.05 $1.10 $1.18 $1.20 $1.25 $1.25 Meter Charge/3/4"/mo. $5.00 $5.00 $5.50 $5.75 $5.75 $6.00 $6.00 $6.50 $6.50 $7.00 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Extra Unit Charge/mo. $2.50 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.50 $5.00 $5.50 $6.00 $6.50 $7.00 $7.50 $7.50 Capital Facilities Charge $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 $60 Beginning Balance $5,000 $4.897 $3,281 $2,965 $3,014 $3,024 $3,106 $3.011 $3,051 $2,884 $3,208 $2,989 $2,888 Revenue($000) Water Sales-metered 10,800 10,900 12.200 12,500 13,500 14,400 15,300 16,200 17,200 18,600 19,100 20,100 .20,300 Water Sales-other 230 230 260 270 290 310 330 350 370 400 410 430 430 w Meter Charge 4,208 4,200 4,600 4,900 4,900 5,100 5,100 5,600 5,600 6,000 6,100 6,500 6,600 OD Extra Unit Charge 1,074 1.080 1,300 1,520 1,740 1,970 2,200 2,440 2,670 2,910 3,150 3,390 3,410 Capital Facilities Charge 5 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Penalty 300 300 340 350 380 410 440 470 500 540 550 580 590 Interest 300 245 164 148 151 151 155 151 153 144 160 149 144 Other 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 81 82 83 Total revenue 16,997 17,045 18,954 19,778 21,051 22,431 23,625 26,311 26,593 28,694 29,571 31,251 31,577 789,435 Net bond proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Available Funds $21,997 $21,941 $22,235 $22,744 $24,064 $25,456 $26,731 $28,321 $29,644 $31,578 $32,780 $34,240 $34,465 ---------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- - ---------- ENRlnflationlndex 6300 6580 6880 7190 7510 7850 Ii200 8570 8960 9360 9780 10220 10680 Expenses($000) Operating-Extg facilities 14,800 15,700 16,000 16,300 17,410 18,480 19,660 20,930 22,200 23,470 24,740 26,010 26,010 Operating-New Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In-Lieu Tax 2,300 2,460 2,750 2,880 3,060 3,270 3,440 3,690 3,880 4,190 4,310 4,560 4,610 Capital replacement 0 500 520 550 570 600 620 650 680 710 740 780 810 Capital Projects-Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 Capital Projects-Master Plan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Debt service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Expenses $17,100 $18,660 $19,270 $19,730 $21,040 $22,350 $23,720 $25,270 $26,760 $28,370 $29,791 $31,352 $31,432 785,800 Ending Balance $4,897 $3,281 $2,965 $3,014 $3,024 $3,106 $3,011 $3,051 $2,884 $3,208 $2,989 $2,888 $3,033 NOCAPIMP.XLS 3/27/95 W I MMIN M 10,111 115,11 1 - ?-`N,:NA , �0 -07�1 mmig !Al) P311P p"*' 10 stow, "T 0 Am-am,W-mm I My- a14 ASS, AAA fIrl"i I non-01 SUP I�N kj emu. M-� 1p, as SEEN Own?*V Wn ON 'VT I ,als MI", Lid gm,I �, 511 -PP." 'Im IWO I RAI am 00, -.4 17"!- ma Mull MAN .............. -2,16 W, RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 3 a-1_-� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BRO�KWAY,CITY CLERK F3oy/e Engineering Corporation __.-sue._.- =-.C'J-v_-s ; acc^ite_,s P.G. ox 3 Street 147.. ...30 .C.Box3030 ~_;e- -.n• ;,� f c_aon0 Plewport Beach,CA 92658-9020 ,74/253-2222 .eiex. 68556? CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH June 24, 1988 Department of Public Works - Water Division Attention Mr.Jeff Renna, Superintendent Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan We are pleased to submit our final report on the City of Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan. The report presents a description of the study area and land use, determination of existing and ultimate water requirements, review of the existing water system, development of the water network computer model, discussion of water supply issues, analysis of the water system conditions, delineation of current and projected system improvements, and several recommendations for City action in order to continue provision of adequate water service and keep pace with growth and redevelopment. A brief summary of the study results is contained in Chapter 1. The recommended improvements consist of six major programs plus several other programs,with a total estimated project cost of$50,000,000, based on current cost levels, to be constructed over the next five years. l� We wish to express our appreciation to the Citystaff for cooperation and assistance during the preparation p aration of this study,particularly Jeff Renna,pEd Barckley, Bob Taylor and Linda Daily. We look forward to continuing to assist the City during the implementation of the Master Plan program. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION Q�pfESSlp�� William R. Everest, PE 4��cO R• E FQ' Principal Engineer Expires 06=/89 o kerhlund, clvl\ivil Engineer `�.! ` r OF CI► bjt enclosures CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PAGE NO. CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 AUTHORIZATION 1-1 1-2 OBJECTIVES 1-1 1-3 SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS 1-1 1-4 RECOMMENDATIONS 1-3 CHAPTER 2 - STUDY AREA AND LAND USE 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA 2-1 2-2 EXISTING LAND USE 2-2 2-3 ULTIMATE LAND USE 2-4 2-4 POPULATION 2-7 CHAPTER 3 -WATER REQUIREMENTS 3-1 HISTORIC WATER PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION 3-1 3-2 UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER 3-3 3-3 DEMAND COEFFICIENTS 3-7 3-4 EXISTING DEMANDS 3-10 3-5 ULTIMATE DEMANDS 3-11 3-6 PEAKING FACTORS 3-12 3-7 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS 3-14 CHAPTER 4 -EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 4-1 . WATER SYSTEM OPERATION 4-1 4-2 IMPORTED WATER SOURCES 4-2 I 4-3 WELLS 4-3 4-4 STORAGE 4-4 4-5 BOOSTER FACILITIES 4-5 4-6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 4-5 4-7 PRESSURE ZONES 4-7 a leCLf:.v�c�,r-r.-ocfi'RQ�Cf�O:r7CICT: or CHAPTER 5 - COMPUTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT 5-1 WATER SOURCES 5-1 5-2 STORAGE FACILITIES 5-4 5-3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 5-4 5-4 MODEL CALIBRATION 5-4 CHAPTER 6-WATER SUPPLY 6-1 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES 6-1 6-2 ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY SOURCES 6-8 CHAPTER 7-WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 7-1 EXISTING SYSTEMS 7-2 7-2 ULTIMATE SYSTEM 7-4 7-3 SOURCE ANALYSIS 7-4 7-4 STORAGE ANALYSIS 7-6 7-5 BOOSTER ANALYSIS 7-9 7-6 DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 7-11• 7-7 RESERVOIR HILL ZONE 7-14 7-8 WATER DIVISION OPERATIONS 7-15 CHAPTER 8 - SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 8-1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS 8-1 8-2 COST ESTIMATES 8-3 r 4R[ acute ^�"ne2sln�Co:acaticn CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. 2-1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS 2-2 2-2 EXISTING LAND USE _2-4 2-3 VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT 2-5 2-4 ULTIMATE LAND USE 2-6 2-5 ULTIMATE BOLSA CIRCA DEVELOPMENT 2-6 2-6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POPULATION 2-7 3-1 TOTAL 6 YEAR PRODUCTION DATA 3-2 3-2 TOTAL WATER CONSUMPTION DATA 3-3 3-3 ESTIMATED UNMETERED MUNICIPAL IRRIGATION 3-4 3-4 WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR FLOW RATES RELATED TO VOLUME PERCENTAGES 3-6' 3-5 CALCULATION OF WATER METER ERROR 3-6 3-6 SUMMARY OF UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER — CALENDAR YEAR 1986 3-7 3-7 SPECIAL WATER CONSUMERS 3-9 3-8 EXISTING DEMAND COEFFICIENTS 3-10 3-9 EXISTING SYSTEM DEMANDS 3-11 3-10 ULTIMATE ANNUAL WATER DEMAND 3-12 3-11 PEAKING FACTORS 3-14 3-12 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 3-15 4-1 IMPORTED WATER CONNECTIONS 4-2 4-2 IMPORTED WATER USE 1981-1987 4-3 4-3 WELL 5 YEAR PRODUCTION 4-4 4-4 WELL FACILITIES SUMMARY FOLLOWS PAGE 4-4 4-5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSIS FOLLOWS PAGE 4-4 4-6 STORAGE FACILITIES/CAPACITIES 4-5 4-7 PRESENT BOOSTER OPERATION FOLLOWS PAGE 4-5 a 4-8 BOOSTER FACILITIES FOLLOWS PAGE 4-5 4-9 PIPE INVENTORY 4-6 ` 4-10 HAZEN-WILLIAMS ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS 4-7 5-1 WELLS -MODEL CONTROLS 5-2 ,. 5-2 - BOOSTERS - MODEL CONTROLS 5-3 5-3 IMPORTED CONNECTIONS ALLOCATED CAPACITY 5-3 e Bo:.:!=Er-r�fraertnc;�or�ora[1r3n �1. ' TABLE PAGE NO. 6-1 WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION 6-1 6-2 COMPARISON OF DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLIES WITH PROJECTED DEMANDS FOR MWD 6-3 6-3 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL YIELD FROM POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 6-7 6-4 SWRO SYSTEMS COSTS 6-13 6-5 SWRO SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS 6-13 7-1 SUMMARY OF WATER DEMANDS AND SYSTEM CAPACITY 7-2 7-2 EXISTING FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS 7-3 7-3 EMERGENCY SOURCE ANALYSIS 7-5 7-4 SUPPLEMENTAL WELL REQUIREMENTS 7-6 7-5 COMPARATIVE WATER STORAGE 7-8 7-6 STORAGE CAPACITY ANALYSIS 7-9 7-7 BOOSTER IMPROVEMENTS 7-11 7-8 ULTIMATE FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS 7-12 7-9 PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 7-13 7-10 RESERVOIR HILL PRESSURE ZONE AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW 7-14 7-11 RESERVOIR HILL PRESSURE ZONE BACK—UP SOURCE AT OVERMYER NOS. 1 & 2 7-15 7-12 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION 7-16* 8-1 SUMMARY COST— MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS 8-4 � e 6o:1ie Er.�tnearin^Cors�ora[?era 6 ;�- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 9 LIST OF FIGURES AND PLATES FIGURE FOLLOWS PAGE 2-1 CITY WATER SERVICE AREA AND MAJOR FACILITIES 2-1 4-1 SAN JOAQUIN RESERVOIR TRANSMISSION MAIN ROUTE 4-3 4-2 WELL LOG SUMMARY 4-4 5-1 EXAMPLE VARIABLE SPEED PUMP CHARACTERISTIC CURVE 5-2 6-1 REVERSE OSMOSIS MEMBRANE CONFIGURATIONS 6-12 6-2 POTENTIAL WEST ORANGE COUNTY WELLFIELD 6-16- 7-1 EXISTING DEMAND/STORAGE HYDROGRAPH 7-7 7-2 ULTIMATE DEMAND/STORAGE HYDROGRAPH 7-7 7-3 ULTIMATE W/BOLSA CHICA DEMAND/ STORAGE HYDROGRAPH 7-7 74 STORAGE/BOOSTER FACILITY-ALTERNATIVE SITES 7-10 PLATE 1 RECOMMENDED SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Back Pocket 2 PROPOSED RESERVOIR HILL SERVICE BOUNDARY Back Pocket r AND NETWORK 1 5' A gS L' Q CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY t 1-1 AUTHORIZATION Boyle Engineering Corporation (Boyle) was retained by the City of Huntington Beach (City) on March 2, 1987 to provide Engineering Services to prepare a comprehensive Master Water Plan. Services to be provided under this agreement were originally described in the City's Request For Proposal (RFP) dated November 6, 1986, and were finalized in the scope of work contained in Boyle's contract with the City dated March 2, 1987. 1-2 OBJECTIVES The Master Plan has been prepared to assist the City's staff to plan for adequate water service to keep pace with growth and redevelopment. Combined with the technical appendix, the plan provides data to additionally serve as a data base for on-going use of the computer water model by the City's staff. The computer model can be used as the City's planning tool for the water system by utilizing it to evaluate operating schemes,• proposed system improvements and related cost impacts to provide alternatives for selection before the need for implementation. Briefly summarized, the major tasks undertaken involve study of the following: - Orange County regional water supply as related to Huntington Beach; ' - Water supply requirements within the City's service area for estimated � PP Y q tY' 4 present and projected ultimate water demands; - An analysis of the City's water distribution system, (by use of a computer model) for identification of necessary improvements; - An evaluation of the proposed Bolsa Chica development impact on the City's ultimate water system; An evaluation of the "Reservoir Hill Assessment District"water system. 1-3 SUMMARY OF STUDY RESULTS Analysis of the current water system as it exists and with proposed improvements indicates that the existing system cannot serve ultimate development unless some improvements are made. A summary of these improvement needs is as follows: 1-1 Sec.=>2 cr:gts-:ze ir:"�.�r,^cra�scr: Sunnly: Current supply sources, consisting of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) imported water from three connections and groundwater from nine wells, is not sufficient to meet existing or projected ultimate demands. Additional supply sources recommended are: reactivation or construction of a total of four supplemental wells, and participation in the West Orange County Well Field project. System Deficiencies: Although the existing water stem is generally adequate to meet � 1� g system g Y q fire flows, the required fire flow at the Peter's Landing area can only be partially met. In addition, the present system is significantly deficient in being able to meet demands for water under current peak hour conditions. Even during previous demand periods of less than a peak hour condition, reservoir levels were dropping drastically. The City should take immediate action to remedy existing fire flow and peak hour deficiencies. Also, the City faces increasing risk by adding new services to the presently deficient system. Booster: To alleviate peak hour demands for both existing and ultimate conditions, additional storage and booster -facilities are necessary. It is recommended that a booster/storage site be constructed in the Southeast area with a Phase I capacity of 54 cfs and a maximum booster capacity of 85 cfs to sufficiently distribute required flows at adequate pressures, for existing and ultimate requirements respectively. Additionally, a separate 9 cfs pumping station is recommended for the Sunset Heights area. Storage: Additional storage is required to augment water sources to distribute maximum day and peak hour demands throughout the system. An estimated 61 million gallons (mg) of storage capacity is proposed to meet ultimate peak demands. The storage should be phased as follows: 24 mg in Phase I to meet existing deficiencies and a 28 mg expansion in Phase II for the Southeast are together with a Phase I reservoir of 9 m xP � g g �- capacity in the Sunset Heights area. Distribution System: To meet transmission requirements for peak hour demands and required fire flows throughout the system approximately 34,000 L.F, of waterline is proposed to alleviate the deficiencies, approximately 16,000 L.F. of which is required for u construction of the recommended Southeast area booster/storage facility for adequate distribution of flow into the system. 0 1-2 -- 8cie Enq:neerinq;orRora[Ion Qperations. Maintenance and Management: Several improvements and investigations are required to improve system operations, maintenance and management, as outlined below. System Improvements: The project cost of all required system improvements is I estimated at $50,000,000, based on Spring 1988 cost levels. A 1-4 RECOMMENDATIONS IIt is recommended that the City undertake several action items over the next five years in order to continue provision of adequate water service and keep pace with growth and redevelopment. The recommendations are categorized below according to categories of facilities, operations and maintenance, and management. Master Plan Facilities 1) Supplement City water supply by reactivating or constructing a total of four (f additional wells. # 2) Design and construct storage and pumping plant facilities in the Sunset Heights* area to increase pressures in the area and supply fire flow to Peter's Landing. 3) Conduct a siting and predesign investigation for the southeast booster/storage complex. 4) Design and construct a new storage reservoir and booster pumping plant in the southeast portion of the service area to alleviate peak hour demand deficiencies and operational and emergency storage deficiencies. 5) Design and construct distribution system improvements in several areas to better meet fire flow and peak hour demands. 6) Initiate treatability studies for groundwater supplies. 7) Conduct a feasibility study of the West Orange County Wellfield project. 8) Study the feasibility of a seawater reverse osmosis desalination project for long- term supply augmentation. 9) Determine the feasibility of modifying and incorporating the Orange County Water District seawater intake pipeline to Water Factory 21 as part of the City distribution system. i 10) Provide dual drive systems for all existing and new pumping station. �g 9 1-3 BcLlre�nql^eer►nq Corporation 1 Operations and Maintenance 1) Adopt the Boyle computer program model of the City water system as a guide for future operations and system modifications. 0 2) Investigate the structural adequacy of major system components, especially Peck a and Overmyer Reservoirs, and compliance with earthquake codes. 3) Provide propane facility backup at all active wells and booster pumps served only by natural gas. i 4) Conduct a cathodic protection survey and institute a program for major facility protection. 6 R 5) Conduct a focused leak detection survey of the City distribution system. 6) Institute a formal facilities replacement program for the large transmission mains over the next five years. 7) Continue groundwater quality monitoring of City wells, especially near areas of potential contamination. 8) Conduct a fiowtest of the San Joaquin Reservoir transmission main during next winter with only City utilization. 9) Incorporate security intrusion detection systems into major water system facilities; provide interface with existing telemetry system and City Police Department facilities. 10) Expand the ongoing meter repair and replacement program, including the addition of production meter testing. 11) Institute a program to meter water use for construction, including fire hydrant and a service connections. 1-4 Management 1) Adopt the Boyle Engineering Master Plan as a formal guide to system upgrading and expansion over the next five years. 2) Adopt the recommended financing strategy, a revenue bond issue, and appropriate Water Division budgets toimplement the Master Plan recommendations. 3 Initiate discussions with Municipal Water District of Orange Coun and PCounty Metropolitan Water District of Southern California regarding the potential of additional imported water connections for the City. 4) Initiate discussions with the Orange County Water District and West Orange County Water Board regarding the potential West Orange County Wellfield Project. 5) Adopt a policy of providing a minimum of one-day emergency storage in the City water system. 6) Participate in San Joaquin Reservoir improvements at a level related to benefits received by the City. 7) Adopt and implement the Emergency Preparedness Guidelines outlined in Chapter 7. 8) Determine additional Master Plan improvements required to serve the Bolsa Chica area, and relate to specific cost of service for that area. 9) Strive to limit annual groundwater pumping rates to the Basin Production Percentage established by OCWD, unless the benefits of additional pumping exceed the economic advantages. 10) Continue to monitor the progress of Phase I of the OCWD Green Acres Project, and evaluate the potential for City participation in Phase H. 1-5 �a:,=3e'�::�;neertrq Car�cra?{ar. CHAPTER 2 STUDY AREA AND LAND USE The master plan study area boundary is defined as the present water service area and the area within the City's sphere of influence. The present service area includes all land within the City 's limits, plus the Surfside and Sunset Beach areas. The City 's sphere of influence includes the present service area plus proposed development in the Bolsa Chica area. Figure 2-1 shows the water service area and major facilities. 2-1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The old Seashore lands owned by investor landowners and previously known as "Pacific City ," were purchased around 1904 by the Huntington Beach Company and renamed "Huntington Beach." The Huntington Beach Company proceeded to make improvements in the City including construction of the initial water system. This initial water system consisted primarily of a storage reservoir located on the highest hill of the City, subsequently named "Reservoir Hill." A single transmission line transported water from Reservoir Hill to the downtown area where the majority of the area's population resided.* In 1915, the State of California Railroad Commission issued rules and regulations for the operation of the Huntington Beach Water Company. The Huntington Beach Water Company was purchased by investors in 1925, and in 1929 the American States Public Services Company of California was formed to manage the water system. During the early Depression years, the courts ordered a distribution of common stock due to the diminishing financial status of the company and the Southern California Water Company was later formed to operate and maintain the system. To more efficiently serve the Orange County area, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) was formed in 1951,and the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) in 1953, to control distribution of water purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD). The City is a member agency of MWDOC, Orange County Water y District (OCWD) and WOCWB. This is primarily coincident with the boundaries of the City of Huntington Beach, which occupies 26 square miles in northwest Orange County. The City also provides water to the Surfside area in the City of Seal Beach, and in an unincorporated part of Orange County known as Sunset Beach. As of 1986, the City's system served to a total of 45,223 private service connections, 381 city service connections, and 124 un-metered connections. 2-1 i7aL..]e En.!n ertryp Cc!,,- r0Vcn -J °4c pJ�j�9 LEGEND IT y F .��•• ••� ••�' OC-9 WELLS R LI C- y EE UPPER LEFT) GA ❑ STORAGE/ BOOSTER F MWD CONNECTION OC-35 ' (SEE ABOVE) , ♦ , SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY s� I ♦ HB-9 �'%F ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ HB- ♦ . s i ♦ HB-10za ♦ O a p ♦ �q OHB-7 H E PECK HB-I o�� OC-44 H B-6 c �� ,�. 1 P y ?, ♦ P Fa _ q9° /--DYKE ♦�G RESERVOIR AN 00.. HB-�I 99v � ,�- P,�' WELL 990 P, ♦ �- � ♦ qc o `s9 �p 'Sq� q�y V. FSp 0�.� p, , �0�� �y S C_A%%H V. ; Q'• �y O 5 ���, sp ��4r s� �� S�, OPT ,�,• l< ♦ oy HUNTINGTON RESERVOIR HARBOR ♦ BOLSA CHICA HILL. z e �P PACIFIC umi P�v �wY• a -+ now a*• DE SUNSET BEACH �a r i COAST CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PACIFIC OCEAN WATER SERVICE . AREA FIGURE 2-1 u The terrain of Huntington Beach is generally flat, lying on a gradual slope from northeast to southwest. Elevations range from sea level to a height of 127 feet in the Reservoir Hill area. The community is almost fully developed in that there are few large-contiguous blocks of land remainingfor the Reservoir vacant except p Hill area. However, redevelopment efforts are now in progress, and the possible annexation of the Bolsa Chica area will affect the City's ability to provide water to its service area. As land is recycled to more intensive land use, demands on the water system will also shift in location and intensity. P 2-2 EXISTING LAND USE The City's current service area encompasses approximately 17,200 acres, over 1600 acres of which are currently vacant. To represent the existing land use, the City's zoning designations were consolidated into general classifications as a basis to represent water use throughout the City. Table 2-1 lists the land use classifications established and the corresponding zoning designations. TABLE 2-1 LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Low Density Residential: Zones R1, RA (0-7 DU/Acre) Medium Densi Residential: Zones R2, MH (8-15 DU/Acre} High Density Residential: Zones R3 R4 (> 15 DU/Acre) Commercial (COMM): � ( ) Zones C1, C2, C4, R5, M1, CFC Manufacturing(MAN): Zone M2 Open Space (OS): Zones ROS, CFR, CFE (closed) School: Zone CFE (open) The majority of the service area is zoned for residential use, mostly in the form of single family detached dwellings, with scattered higher density residential areas. Commercial areas are located mostly along Beach Boulevard State Highway north from Adams ( � y 39) 2-2 woe,^le Er= 7eertnc Corg=rer:on a Avenue to the City limits and in the Huntington Center Area located adjacent to the San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405). Additional commercial areas are spotted along the arterial roads throughout Huntington Beach . Light industrial and commercial users are concentrated in the northwest section of Huntington Beach, where McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Company and Weiser Lock are large water consumers. The City Planning Department reported in the June 1986 Vacant Lands Survey that there were 1,633 acres of vacant land as of June 1986, mostly scattered throughout the City. The Reservoir Hill area, currently being established as an assessment district, is the largest continuous block of undeveloped land with in the water service area. The majority of vacant land is currently zoned for medium to high density residential and commercial uses. For this study, 1,419 acres of vacant land were identified as additional development for ultimate conditions, with the remaining 214 acres consisting of individual lots scattered throughout the City and parcels within the current specific plans. Table 2-2 summarizes the existing land use. s Y 2-3 Bc�1re�r 4dPTeer.n4 moo:pora:;cn TABLE 2-2 EXISTING LAND USE z P s NET AREA PERCENT CATEGORY (ACRES)- OF TOTAL Low Density Residential 7893 47 4 Medium Density Residential 1373 8 High Density Residential 1613--- 10 Commercial 1928 11 Manufacturing 48 <'1 a School 936 6 Open Space 820 5 Special Consumers" 753 4 Vacant 1419 8 TOTAL 16,783 100 ' Including public right of way. " Special consumers are identified in Chapter 3 as water users above or below the typical demand per acre. Includes 75.2 acres for service to Sunset Beach and 36.4 acres to Surfside. � - MATE 2 3 ULTIMATE LAND USE The ultimate land use of the City 's service area is divided into three parts for discussion in this report: 1) New development of vacant land, 2) Redevelopment of land with intensified water demands and, 3) Development and possible annexation of lands currently outside the City's limits. In this master plan, it is assumed that all undeveloped land in the City will be ultimately developed. A majority of these parcels are within current medium to high density residential zoning. In addition, a major concentration of future light industrial use is located alongside the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, north of Clay to the City limits. 4 Table 2-3 summarizes the ultimate development of this vacant land. i 2-4 ScurRat.a- y� TABLE 2-3 VACANT LAND DEVELOPMENT VACANT" LAND PERCENT CATEGORY (ACRES) OF TOTAL Low Density Residential 454 32 Medium Density Residential 119 8 High Density Residential 265 19 Commercial 502 36 R Manufacturing 14 1 rOpen Space 47 3 School 18 1 TOTAL 1,419* 100 * The remaining 214 acres identified in the 1986 Vacant Land Survey are individual lots scattered throughout the City's service area and parcels within current specific plans, and are accounted for in the overall landuse identification. Sunset Beach and Surfside are assumed to be 100 percent developed. Several areas of the City, all located in or near the downtown area, have been designated for redevelopment under existing Specific Plans. These areas are proposed to be redeveloped as mixed use, high density developments. Current development plans include hotels and shops near the City pier and mixed residential, commercial and industrial uses in the Reservoir Hill area. Currently, the areas included in these Specific Plans are approximately 50 percent vacant. Table 2-4 summarizes the total projected landuse within the City's service area. 4 Altlpr V 2-5 ell TABLE 2-4 � ULTIMATE LAND USE NET AREA PERCENT CATEGORY (ACRES) OF TOTAL E Low Density Residential 8288 49 Medium Density Residential 1506, 9 s High Density Residential 1944 12 Commercial 2417 14 Manufacturing 65 <1 School 955 6 a Open Space 855 5 s Special Consumers 753 4 S TOTAL 16,783 100 Includes 75.2 acres for service to Sunset Beach and 36.4 acres to Surfside. A portion of the Bolsa Chica area is currently being planned by Signal Landmark for residential and commercial development. The source of water for service to this area has, been an issue, with the City being the most probable source. The City is considering annexing this area and supplying longterm water service. The total net acreage of the proposed Bolsa Chica development is 418 acres. Table 2-5 summarizes Signal Landmark's present development projections. TABLE 2-5 ULTIMATE BOLSA CHICA DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED LAND USE AREA(ACRES) Low Density Residential -- Medium Density Residential -- High Density Residential 343 Commercial 56 Manufacturing Open Space 19 TOTAL 418 d 2-6 '�o:�;��n�tneerir,G Corpar�:;cn 2-4 POPULATION The City's population has been consistently growing at a rate of 1-2 percent over the past seven years, with projected growth of less than one percent per year to 220,122 persons in 2010. Table 2-6 summarizes the population over the last six years. TABLE s 2-6 � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH POPULATION 0 Y s PERCENT YEAR POPULATION INCREASE 1950 5,237 -- 1960 11,492 11.9 (10 Yr. Avg.) 1970 115,960 9.1 (10 Yr. Avg.) 1978 162,000 5.0 1979 167,200 3.2 1980 170,100 1.7 1981 173,392 1.9 1982 175,716 1.3 1983 178,667 1.7 1984 179,734 0.6 1985 181,946 1.2 1986 184,280 1.3 2010 220,122** 0.8%/Year Source: 1986-87 Vol. 23 "Orange County Progress Report" Does not include Sunset Beach or Surfside population. Estimated from 1980 U. S. Census Bureau and 1985 Orange County "OCP-85" projections. h S 2-7 EO:.1PE-Engir,eerdnq Corpora[Do:� CHAPTER 3 WATER REQUIREMENTS In order to analyze the City's present water system adequately, an analysis was made of F: existing land use and water demands. The results of this analysis were (1) the development of demand coefficients, which are values that measure average water demand for each type of land use, and (2) the development of pealdng factors, which are the ratios of water use during maximum use periods to average water use over the same s time period. � N i 4 3.1 HISTORIC WATER PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION Over the last five years, the City has been supplied by an average mix of 24 percent 5 imported water and 76 percent groundwater, with most of the imported supplies being 1 fi produced in the high-use summer months, and very low importation during the winter months. The City's present operation is based on utilizing the maximum amount of groundwater possible while satisfying a majority of its peak demands from the imported connections. Historic demands are most reliably established from records of water produced and delivered to the distribution system from reservoirs, wells, and MWD connections. Table 3-1 lists the historic water production for the fiscal years of 1981-82 through 1986- 87. For the past six years, water demands have sporadically increased at an average rate of 3.1 percent per year. Annual water delivery to the system during this period averaged- 34,851 acre-feet,which is equivalent to an annual average flow rate of 21,605 gpm. p k 3-1 soUre E.mclneerinc:Cor OraCior TABLE 3-1 TOTAL 6 YEAR PRODUCTION DATA (ACRE-FEET) MONTH 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 AVG F JUL 3443 3482 3590 3781 3918 3729 3657 AUG 3447 3432 3584 3616 3786 3850 3619 y SEP 3019 2915 3221 3478 3333 3223 3198 isOCT 2621 2939 2729 3137 3291 3029 2958 NOV 2407 2359 2262 2262 2449 2829 2478 5 F DEC 2141 2198 2191 2287 2556 2599 2329 g JAN 2105 2357 2392 2365 2673 2577 2412 FEB 1906 1890 2570 2196 2098 2393 2176 MAR 2154 2105 3003 2617 2460 2735 2512 APR 2394 2369 3009 3039 2856 3265 2822 MAY 2891 2884 3548 3369 3512 3560 3294 JUN 2973 311338 44888 3577 310 5900 3396 o TOTAL 31501 32070 35587 35910 36655 37379 34851 %Increase 1.8% 11.0% 0.9% 2.1% 2.0% 6 year Average Annual Production = 21,605 gpm Maximum Month = 126% of Average Annual (July 1985) g Includes groundwater and imported water 6 ' Five years of data is preferred to properly evaluate water system consumption trends. However, the City has only recently begun to retain water billing data for each year. Therefore only partial records are available for the years of 1985 through 1987. Available bi-monthly water billing records.are summarized in Table 3-2. S 3-2 TABLE 3-2 TOTAL WATER CONSUMPTION DATA ' (ACRE-FEET) ' PERIOD YEAR 1985 1986 JAN-FEB 3901 4752 r MAR-APR 4800 4564 MAY-JUN 5141 5727 a JUL-AUG N/A 6221 SEP-OCT N/A 5760 3 ' NOV-DEC 4933 4977 r, f_ TOTAL N/A 32,001 1: g � 9 's i 22 1 3-2 UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER Unaccounted-for water is the difference of the amount of water produced and the amount* E billed to customers. An expected rate for a system of this size and location is ' approximately five percent. In 1986, the only year of complete water consumption data, 3 unaccounted-for water in the Ci s stem is calculated t 12 percent f the � h'' system o be p o water � produced. Within the water system, the following are expected sources of unaccounted-for water and S A � an estimate of the usage for the 1986 sample year: Ci y Facilities The City's standard billing records do not include the amount of water used by municipal facilities, which are billed on a bi-annual frequency and are included under separate record. These municipal facilities include City Hall, all operations offices, parks, schools and fire departments. The 1986 metered usage for these facilities is 783 acre-feet. b Arterial/Median Irrigation Irrigation of municipal landscape medians and landscape areas along the arterial roads throughout the City is not metered. Table 3-3 summarizes the number of unmetered services by size and the estimated usage of each in 1986. Since City municipal irrigation 3-3 g^L;!--anpineerinp C©:=arat5cn feet. Fire training in City streets is also performed; however, the water usage related to this activity is assumed to be negligible. A Construction Water t In 1986, the City charged contractors a flat rate for water used in construction and did not meter the actual usage. In 1986, the City reports that 833 single family units and 645 multi-units were constructed for a total of 1478 units. For this study, it is conservatively approximated that 50 acre-feet of water was used for construction purposes. It is recommended for water accounting purposes that all construction connections be ' metered. Points of connection for construction water usage consist of both hydrants and jumper service connections. Customer Meter Adjustment A major source of unaccounted-for water is generally found to be the inaccuracy of the individual customer meters. At best, a meter will accurately register the amount of flow through a certain flow range, and any flow rate above or below this range will typically be registered at a lower rate. In addition, as the meter becomes worn from usage, its registration of flow is generally less than the actual flow. Detail studies and replacement/repair programs have shown that the additional cost required to account for this lost water is easily recovered by the additional revenue generated. The following analysis, Tables 3-4 and 3-5, is structured after the California Department of Water Resources August 1986 "Water'Audit and Leak Detection Guidebook" procedures, and ' estimates the City's 1986 meter error to be 1853 acre-feet. 1 ' x � kg rC F G r 3-5 Eoi.!!e Er:glneerinq Corgcrat.c^ e TABLE 3-4 WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR FLOW RATES ' RELATED TO VOLUME PERCENTAGES" ' Percent of Time Range in GPM Average GPM Percent Volume 15 Low 0.5 - 1.0 0.75 2.0 ' 70 Med 1 - 10 5.00 63.8 K s 15 High 10- 15 12.50 34.2 From article by Penchin Tao written for Journal of the American Water Works Association, "Statistical Sampling Technique for Controlling the Accuracy of Small Water Meters,"June 1982. a TABLE 3-5 ' CALCULATION OF WATER METER ERROR • (1) ' Total1986 Volume �2) Sales At Flow eter Volume Rate Registrations Meter Errors* % Volume (AF) (AF) C% ) (AF) 2.0 32001 640 89 79 63.8 32001 20417 95 1075 s N 34.2 32001 10944 94 699 ° 100.0 1853 Source: August 1986 "Water Audit and Leak Detection Guidebook" - DWR Meter error = (1)/(2) - (1) Conclusion Table 3-6 summarizes the above analysis of unaccounted-for water showing a decrease from 12.2 percent to 4.3 percent. This remaining unaccounted-for water could be due to leaks, minor operational usage and/or accounting errors. The preceding analysis identifies the major source of lost water to be inaccurate customer meters, approximately 50 percent of the unmetered water consumption. d 3-6 2oe..jle='n:,:r^eer6rc=or^cr a:ic;; i The City presently has a basic customer meter replacement/repair program; however, it is ' recommended that a more extensive program be established. To further accurately account for water usage in the system, a production meter testing program is ' recommended for meters at all wells. Leak detection, discussed in Chapter 7, is another procedure to identify amounts of unaccounted-for water not estimated in the above analysis. ' TABLE 3-6 ' SUMMARY OF UNACCOUNTED-FOR WATER - CALENDAR YEAR 1986 Quantity Percent of ' SAFE Production Production 36468 100 Customer-Metered (excluding City Facilities) 32001 87. Unaccounted-for Water 4467 12.2 ' Sources of Unaccounted-for Water iCity facilities-metered 783 2.1 Arterial/Median irrigation-unmetered 49 0.1 s Hydrant testing& flushing-' Water Dept. 2 minimal Hydrant testing-Fire Department 27 0.1 Hydrant usage -664 fire starts 20 0.1 Construction water-unmetered 50 0.1 Customer meter adjustment 1853 1_1 Subtotal 2784 7.6 Total (metered&unmetered usage) 34785 5�.4 N Remaining unaccounted-for water 1683 4.6 ! * Includes minor operational water use. e i 3-3 DEMAND COEFFICIENTS ' Demand coefficients are values developed to estimate the average water demand per acre 4 of land for each type of land use, measured in gallons per minute per acre (GPM/ACRE) in this report. 3-7 e a The first step in the development of the demand coefficients is to gather data for several ' t sample areas of each type of land use category. Billing records are used to determine the F actual water consumed by a sample area in a particular year. For this study, three to six sample areas of each land use classification and five "special water consumers" were q analyzed to develop the unit demand coefficients. ICurrently, approximately one third of the schools located within the City limits are closed. ' However, the various school districts that have jurisdiction within the City are leasing some of these closed schools on a part-time basis to day care centers and local Community Colleges. A factor of 1.0 gpm/acre has been applied to all closed schools to ' account for irrigation and minimal facility usage. ' "Special water consumers" have historic consumption significantly above or below the average usage for its particular land use classification. Table 3-7 summarizes special ' water consumers identified for separate evaluation of water demand. 1 � r 0 9 Ta 5 9 4 Y 7 pp5 Y5 f 3-8 3oz.a.'�:-^•�=-�eer�nQ�orAc:at;o;; F i TABLE 3-7 SPECIAL WATER CONSUMERS h ' a Annual Demand Demand ' Area 1986 Coefficient Name Acres GPM (GPM jAcre) County Sanitation ' Districts Plant 2 125 163 1.30 ' Southern California Edison Power Plant 100 420 4.20 Shell Oil Production 96 182 1.90 ' McDonnell-Douglas ' Astronautics Co. 210 378 1.80 Weiser Lock Co. 54 177 3.30 Huntington Center Area 90 36 0.40 (Mall and Vicinity) Meadowlark Golf Course* 78 _Q 0 TOTAL 753 1356 s All irrigation supplied from an on site well. Unit demand coefficients determined for each land use classification and special users, were applied to the total acreage attributed to each land use category. The validity of the demand coefficients was then confirmed by comparing the total demands calculated with sthe total production for the year. The calculated demand was less than five percent below the total production in 1986, which compares favorably with the remaining unaccounted- for rate of 4.6 percent. 1 3-9 Soule Enpineerina Corporation IDemand coefficients were then confirmed and revised upwards slightly to reflect total water production, rather than consumption. Demand coefficients used for the water system analysis are summarized in Table 3-8. TABLE 3-8 EXISTING DEMAND COEFFICIENTS ' ANNUAL DEMAND COEFFICIENT TYPE OF LAND USE (GPM/ACRE) Low Density Residential (0-7 DU/Acre) 1.2 Medium Density Residential (8-15 DU/Acre) 2.2 ' High Density Residential (> 15 DU/Acre) 2.7 : Commercial 1.3 Manufacturing 3.7 Irrigated Open Space 1.1 Schools .02 GPM/Student ' c 34 EXISTING DEMANDS For the water system analysis, the water demands associated with existing conditions are assumed to be equivalent to the 1986 recorded demand. The demand coefficients discussed previously were applied to each land use category to calculate the total demand. Table 3-9 lists each land use category and its associated demand for existing conditions. YJ C p7 C yk i 1 � 3-10 �ou0e���lneerEnq cc.poratlon �� IJ � TABLE 3-9 EXISTING SYSTEM DEMANDS EXISTING ANNUAL AREA DEMAND LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES (GPM) Low Density Residential 7893 9472 Medium Density Residential 1373 3020 High Density Residential 1613 4356* Commercial 1928 2508 Manufacturing 48 179 School 936 902 Open space 820 817 Special Users 753 1355 Vacant Land 1419 0 TOTAL 16783 22609 ' Includes 203 gpm for service to Sunset Beach and 98 gpm to Surfside. 1 3-5 ULTIMATE DEMANDS ' In addition to the development of vacant land, Specific Plans and Bolsa Chica, the Seabridge Apartments on Beach Boulevard between Indianapolis and Adams and Huntington Center have been assigned higher unit demand coefficients for the ultimate demand projections. Huntington Center, identified as a special water consumer due to its low water use per acre, is projected to increase development with more intensive commercial uses, such as high rise office buildings. Table 3-10 summarizes the coefficients used for each land use category and special users, and the projected demand for ultimate conditions. a 3-11 !3oLile EnQtneeanp corporavon 1 TABLE 3-10 ULTIMATE ANNUAL WATER DEMAND City Service Area Bolsa Chica e Area Demand Area Demand Total Acre (gpm) Acres (gpm) Demand Low Density Res. 8288 9945 -- -- 9945 g Medium Density Res. 1506 3314 -- -- 3314 High Density Res. 1944 5248** 343 926 6174 Commercial 2417 3143 56 73 3216 Manufacturing 65 240 — -- 240 School 955 796 -- -_ 796 p Open Space 855 940 19 21 0_61 ' Subtotal 16030 23626 418 1020 24646 Special Water Consumers CSDOC Plant#2 125 163 -- -- 163 SCE Power Plant 100 420 == 420 Shell Oil Production 96 182 - 182 McDonnell-Douglas 210 377 -- -- 377 Weiser Lock Co. 54 177 -- -- 177 Huntington Center Area 90 117 -- -- 117 Meadowlark Golf Course 78 0 Subtotal 753 1436 0 0 1436 TOTAL 16783 25062 418 1020 26082 R 9 s ' Irrigation demand assumed to be met by onsite well; domestic service from City supply *`Includes 203 gpm for service to Sunset Beach and 98 gpm to Surfside. a 3-6 PEAKING FACTORS p y Peaking factors represent the increase above average annual demand experienced during a specific time period, and are expressed as a multiplier of the average demand. The following peaking conditions are significant in the water system analysis: 6 3-12 Corporation f - Maximum Month - The highest water use during a calendar month of the year. This factor is used primarily in the evaluation of supply capabilities. a Peak Week - Peak week is the maximum water use within a calendar week. This factor has recently begun to be used in the evaluation of regional water 4 demands. C - Maximum Day - This is the highest water demand in a 24 hour period. The water system is normally tested under "maximum day plus fire" conditions. - Peak Hour - This is the highest water demand in a one-hour period. The adequacy of the system to meet peak hour demands is normally tested under maximum day conditions. The various peaking conditions are statistical concepts, and numeric values are normally obtained from a review of historical data and adjusted by engineering judgment and experience. For the Huntington Beach water system, there is an adequate data base for monthly, weekly and daily demand conditions, however, data is limited for peak hour conditions. The maximum month factor can be calculated from monthly production data shown in Table 3-1. There is an extensive data base available for the determination of maximum day demand. Daily well and MWD connection meter readings for the past 5 years have been maintained by City Water system personnel. An analysis of this data for the months of May through October of these years illustrated that the maximum day demand occurred on June 1, 1982, with a peaking factor of 2.43. This is slightly higher than maximum day p factor in similar systems. As a point of interest, it should also be noted that the previous day, May 31, 1982, the system demand was 98 percent of this maximum day demand. Typical City peak hour data was unavailable. Peak hourly usage for systems within this area will generally be double that of the maximum day, up to approximately four times the average annual demand. A peaking factor of 4.0 was assumed to evaluate the City's water system for peak hour conditions. k s s City Water personnel also requested that a "peak week" factor be established. 'Peak a week"factors are being utilized by agencies such as MWDOC and OCWD for their water o usage projection calculations on a County-wide basis. Grouping the daily water use in seven day units from Sunday to Saturday for the months of June through October, 1981 3-13 Bctile Enc.lr?eerinq=or=cra[lon R through 1986 yielded a"peak week" factor of 1.62, during the week of August 7 to August a 13, 1983. A summary of peaking factors is presented in Table 3-11. TABLE 3-11 PEAKING FACTORS PERCENT OF AVERAGE PEAKING FACTOR DATES ANNUAL DEMAND MAXIMUM MONTH July 1985 128 PEAK WEEK August 7-13, 1983 162 MAXIMUM DAY June 1, 1982 243 PEAK HOUR N/A 400 3-7 FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS In the development of a water system master plan, it is essential that system flows and pressures are sufficient for adequate fire protection. Fire protection requirements vary according to land use and density in accordance with Table 3-12. Information shown in the table was developed by the Huntington Beach Fire Department and is based on criteria of the Insurance Services Office (ISO), a national organization independent of the City. ISO criteria is the basis for the rating of water systems for the establishment of insurance coverage. The flows shown in Table 3-12 must be provided under maximum day conditions with a 20 psi residual water pressure in the water main adjacent to the fire G hydrant per ISO criteria. The City Fire Department also requires all buildings over 5,000 S.F. to have a fire sprinkler system. 3 a G i E 3-14 8ce fle E^gfr7�2rfnq Ccr poraG/ora i TABLE 3-12 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS M FIRE FLOW DURATION FIRE ZONING CLASSIFICATION REQUIRED REQUIRED STORAGE LOT SIZE (GPM) (HOURS) MG A. Low Density Res. each 160,000 SF net land area 2000-3500 2 .18 B. Medium& High Density Res., Commercial & Industrial Lot Size ' Less than 10,000 S.F. 3000 3 .54 10,000 to 19,999 S.F. 3500 3 .63 20,000 to 29,999 S.F. 4000 4 .96 30,000 to 39,999 S.F. 4500 4 1.08 40,000 to 49,999 S.F. 5000 5 1.50 50,060 to 59,999 S.F. 5500 5 1.65 60,000 S.F. or more 6000 6 2.16 Source: Huntington Beach Fire Department; based on Insurance Service Office (ISO) criteria. t 3-15 g� E CHAPTER 4 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM As of 1986, the Huntington Beach's water system served a City population of nearly 190,000 people from over 45,000 service connections ranging in size from 5/8" to 10". The { total average daily service water production is nearly 33 million gallons per day (mgd), f and the unit average daily production is approximately 174 gallons per person per day. The system consists of two pressure zones that can be divided into the five readily distinguishable components listed below: - MWD Sources - Wells - Storage - Boosters - Distribution System The locations of the source, storage and booster facilities are illustrated in Figure 2-1. 4-1 WATER SYSTEM OPERATION Water is currently produced from nine wells which vary in depth from 250 feet to 900 feet, with production varying from 450 gallons per minute (gpm) to 4000 gpm. Total maximum operating capacity from all nine wells is 25,700 gpm. All wells pump directly into the system except Wells No. 2 and No.4,which pump into Peck Reservoir. The City has three connections with MWD, each designed to operate at a fixed flow as specified by the city. The total allocated capacity of these three imported water connections is 20,300 gpm(45.25 cfs). a Peck Reservoir, and Overmyer Reservoirs Nos. 1 and 2, and storage capacity in the regional San Joaquin Reservoir comprises the City's storage capacity. Booster facilities pump water from the reservoirs into the system to meet peak demands. While Peck and Overmyer facilities are operating reservoirs, the San Joaquin Reservoir is a regional supply reservoir. The operating capacity into the system, from both Peck and Overmyer reservoirs,is 35,600 gpm. 4-1 �a�°;e�-.;:r-eer�nc.Carrarac:cr. 4 a Another booster station at Reservoir Hill boosts water from the main zone into a small closed pressure zone. A new booster station is planned to serve the proposed Reservoir Hill assessment district, as well as the existing area, and the entire area will be served by a closed pressure zone. b The water distribution system has approximately 480 miles of pipeline ranging in size from 2 inches to 42 inches, including over 45,000 service connections, as of August 1986. The City also maintains emergency connections with the water agencies serving the cities of Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, and Westminster. In the case of source outages, these facilities may allow the City to maintain a minimum water supply. Huntington Beach and Mesa Consolidated Water District are both connected to the joint transmission main from San Joaquin Reservoir. Y 4-2 IMPORTED WATER SOURCES Three MWD water transmission pipelines supply imported water from the Colorado River and State Water Project. The MWD service connection designations are OC 9; OC 35, and OC 44. Table 4-1 summarizes data on these three imported water connections. TABLE 4-1 IMPORTED WATER CONNECTIONS e ALLOCATED CAPACITY MWD CONNECTION FSl� (GPM) OC 9 10.25 4,600 OC 35 20 9,000 OC 44 5 C,700 F TOTAL 45 20,300 OC 9 is located at the intersection of Dale and Katella Streets in the City of Garden r Grove. Water from this connection enters Huntington Beach at the intersection of Newland and Edinger Streets with a capacity to deliver 4,600 gpm to the system. A second connection OC 35 is located at the same intersection and enters Huntington Beach at the intersection of Springdale and Glenwood Streets with a capacity of 4-2 �c:;ie��,�tr-.eer:r:G Cork:actor a a c 6 9000 gpm. OC 9 and OC 35 are under the jurisdiction of the WOCWB. These turnouts F are operated on a fixed flow basis. The meter (owned by MWD) for the third connection, OC 44, is located at the San i fi Joaquin Reservoir. Flow to the San Joaquin Reservoir is delivered by the East Orange s County Feeder No. 2 (EOCF No. 2). From the OC 44 meter water is delivered to the City's service area through a 24- to 42-inch transmission main jointly owned by the City and Mesa Consolidated Water District (MCWD) as shown on Figure 4-1. A secondary metering station, owned by the City is located on Adams Avenue at the Santa Ana River. A summary of imported water use from 1982-1986 is given in Table 4-2. TABLE 4-2 IMPORTED WATER USE 1981-1987 (ACRE-FEET) 81-82 82- 3 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 6 Yr.Avg. % of Total OC 9 3165 1781 0 0 4158 5411 1821 22 OC 35 3470 2548 4777 6715 4879 5100 4478 54 OC 44 1703 2344 2229 1430 2141 1185 1969 24 TOTAL 8338 6672 7006 8145 11178 11696 8268 100 %of Total 26 21 20 23 31 31 23 Demand (incl. Groundwater) i a 4-3 WELLS A total of nine wells are active and in service as of the date of this report. Figure 4-2 is the Well Log Summary showing well and pump depths as well as location of screen perforation. A summary of the annual production of each well is given in Table 4-3. The City presently operates each well by adjusting the pump speed to obtain its desired operation. Table 4-4 is a summary of the well facilities. 4-3 sm ae a-csineerina corporation t i O I W t � R t O N W 240 i cV soon SWAN nk ` 24• O FAIRvIEM STATE MOS?4TAL QC. iYR6ROUNDS _ HUNnNGTON ACH "" I �P� _ GT►NIILL c�GGK 4` _ vl TORIA ' �P �� rug ram ►v . M gpY o UPPER t4c ISTO O \ pop C � G O� 7 � Iiy b NEWPORT BEACH 4 C4)yY0N Kp. FORD 1 42' ® ® � OWNED BY CITY OF HUNTNGTON BEACH I \ ® JONTLY OWNED— OC-44 SAS JOAOUIN KINTNGTON BEACH AND MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT RESERVOIR San Joaquin Reservoir Transmission Main Route Figure 4-1 p Although the design capacity of all presently operating wells is 27,500 gpm, equipment and operating conditions have restricted the recent operating capacity to approximately 21,200 gpm. TABLE 4-3 WELL 5 YEAR PRODUCTION (Acre-Feet) 6 Yr. o of WELL 1-82 2-8 83- 4 84-85 85- 86-87 Avg. Total 4 � DYKE 799 809 663 796 642 437 691 3 HBI 841 1290 1007 890 784 776 931 3 HB2 2585 2480 1846 1977 2252 1387 2088 8 HB3 (ABANDONED) HB4 4920 4706 5000 4727 4958 4869 4863 18 HB5 4722 4658 4344 3731 3436 4600 4249 16 HB6 4662 4582 2333 2136 2273 2458 3074 it HB7 4635 5569 4004 4189 3655 3193 4208 15 HB8 0 0 119 0 0 0 20 < 1 l HB9 _ 1007 4267 4577 3746 4085 3531 13 HB10 296 4999 4744 3733 3878 3530 100• HB11 (NOT EQUIPPED) -� TOTAL 23,164 25,397 28,582 27,767 25,479 25,683 27,185 % of 74 79 80 77 69 69 77 Total Demand (Incl. Imported) Well No. 11, drilled in 1985, is not operating due to poor water quality. In addition, Well No. 8 is not used due to excessive color and odor concentrations. Past problems have also ■ been encountered with sanding at Well No.4 and excessive color from Well No. 2. Table 4-5 lists the results of a water quality analysis performed by the City in July 1987 for the overall quality of groundwater extracted by Huntington Beach. It is recommended that the City initiate a treatability study of color and odor removal for City groundwater. A A 4-4 STORAGE 6 The two reservoirs located at Garfield and Huntington Streets are known as Overmyer I iand H and have a combined capacity of 24.2 million gallons (mg). Peck Reservoir is located at Springdale and Glenwood and has a capacity of 16 mg. Total combined capacity of all three reservoirs is 40.2 mg. The City also has storage capacity of 128 m of P ty ty g P ty g a 3 water in the San Joaquin Reservoir, located on The Irvine Company property in Newport Beach, for a total storage capacity of 168 mg. Although the City has 128 mg of capacity 4-4 ISo4Ne E pineerlrac'Corj=orallon 100 DYKE HB1 HB2 HB4 HB5 HB6 HB7 HB8 HB9 HB1O HB11 0 Not 100 170 quip' 190 200 223 _ 265[j 25 246 --- 263 _ 232 291 -=_ ==- _- _= 256 =__ 300 == -= = ==_ === 320 359 =_ =- 378 390 37 = 400 480 -== 500 m 551 =—- _= 556 _ 522 510 535 - -- 807 __= __ 591 ___ =_= 586 - 560 =__ 600 0 625 2 672 -_- __ 705 _=- _= __ =_= 699 -- 704 700 735 730 =.___. - 786 =- __ 768 - - 804 -_- 800 - ___ --- r 0 800 810 === 826 -_ C 900 1NEN N° PAD EL WELL PUMP DEPTH DEPTH 942 --- C DYKE . 53.68 208ft. 956 --- 3 1000HBI 22.22 30811. IBM. 3 HB 2 16.00 aloft. 200ft. OMO HB 4 23.0 8o4ft. 200ft. HB 5 28AI am. 150% 1100 HB6 16.67 aloft. 150ft. LEGEND HB 7 23.69 89111. 150ft. -- 0 PERFORATIONS HBO 13.00 724ft. 156ft. PUMP C 1200 HBO 27.78 1775ft. 0ft. 156ft.HB 10 23.75 156ft.1 -13.50 Not E ui . TABLE 4-4 WELL FACILITIES SUMMARY Design Well Pumping Pump Pump Speed Operating Year Depth Capacity Head Speed Set By Capacity Well Drilled Feet (GPM) (Feet) RPM City (GPM) * DYKE 1956 204 500 240 1,760 1,760 510 HB1 1962 306 750 316 1,760 1,760 790 HB2 1962 820 2,000 245 1,760 1,760 1,500 HB3 (ABANDONED) HB4 1967 804 4,000 150 1,500 1,584 2,890 HB5 1969 820 4,000 263 1,760 1,666 2,860 HB6 1973 810 4,00.0 300 1,710(Max. ) 1,030 2,730 HB7 1975 891 4,000 300 1,180 1,108 3,530 U] t� r HB8 1978 724 NOT USED - EXCESSIVE COLOR AND ODOR ru M a HB9 1981 996 4,000 280 1,760 1,648 2,990 :i tro HB10 1981 960 4,000 280 1,760 1,636 3,400 y ll HB11 - 1985 775 NOT EQUIPPED - POOR QUALITY 0 a TOTAL 27,500 21,200 o� * Source: Huntington Beach Water Department 7 mom mom i M M M w "N O MI M r M 60 M ■is i" TABLE 4-5 GROUNDWATER QUALITY ANALYSIS* Dyke HB-1 -HB-2 HB-4 HB-5 HB-6 BH-7 HB-9 HB-10 MWD* (t)pm) (Dom) (T)PM) (pnm) (ot)m) (Ppm) _(ppm) (Ppm) (ppm) Water Iron (Fe) ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 Calcium (Ca) 31 60 31 35 63 38 51 20 43 51 Magnesium (Mg) 5 it 4 5 it 6 9 16 7 20 Sodium (Na) 56 31 47 41 37 44 31 54 36 64 Sulfate(SO4) 37 71 31 36 72 40 46 33 40 157 Chloride (C12) 54 18 12 13 34 16 15 10 13 58 Carbonate (CO3) ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND Bicarbonate (HCO3) 131 216 186 183 204 186 214 159 198 126 Manganese (Mn) ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 ND<0.01 Nitrate (NO3) 3.2 0.9 0.6 0.13 3.6 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 Potassium (K) 5 4 3 3 5 4 5 3 4 3.5 Total Dissolved Solids 286 324 152 242 344 268 286 220 274 429 i0 Total Hardness L as CaCO3 98 193 96 109 200 117 165 56 135 210 ro Determinations 'ra Spec. Conductance 485 525 400 405 570 430 470 360 430 714 (u Mhos/CM) H-ion Activity(pH) 7.79 7.77 7.98 7.98 7.89 7.93 7.86 8.09 7.89 8.03 rt Flouride (F) - in PPM 0.72 0.50 0.40 0.40 0.52 0.52 0.55 0.43 0.57 0.18 - Source: City Tests - July, 1987 to < - Less than ** - M.W.D. test taken 6/86 Diener Plant N.D. - None Detected ppm - Parts per million k � in the San Joaquin Reservoir, it should be noted that the capacity can only be delivered at a maximum rate of 6700 gpm via the OC-44 turnout. Table 4-6 presents a summary of these facilities. TABLE 4-6 STORAGE FACILITIES/CAPACITIES Max. Bottom Overflow Water Capacity Reservoir El v F El v F D F (MG) Overmyer I 53.0 69.5 16.5 2.7 Overmyer H 23.3 71.8 48.5 21.5 Peck 7.5 33.2 25.7 16.0. Subtotal-Operating Storage 40.2 San Joaquin 128.0` TOTAL 168.0 * City Allocation 4-5 BOOSTER FACH=S Booster pumps deliver water from a reservoir to the distribution system. These reservoirs fill at night or during the low demand periods, then serve as a source when the boosters are activated to satisfy high demands. The booster operation is controlled b the system pressure at the complex Each um is P Y � P P pump activated when the pressure in the system drops to a specified level. Table 4-7 summarizes the existing operation of the booster facilities. Table 4-8 is a summary of the booster facilities design capacities. 4-6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM g The distribution system consists of nearly 480 miles of pipeline ranging in diameter from 2-to 42-inch pipe. For computer modeling purposes, only the backbone system consisting of 12-inch pipe and larger was modeled. A few 8- and 10-inch pipes were included in the computer model to complete looping and service to critical areas. The existing network is shown on Plate L showing major street names,pipe length,and diameter. 4-5 Bpcll?Ergf!L2rin�Co:f✓craCion M " M TABLE 4-7 PRESENT BOOSTER OPERATION Operation Order Pressure On Pressure Maintained Booster Unit Activated (PSI) (PSI) Peck 1 First 68-72 70 2 Second 68-72 70 3 Third 68-72 70 Overmyer I 1 Fourth 43 50 2 First 43 50 Overmyer II 3 Second 44-45 50 4 Third 44-45 50 Reservoir Hill* 1 Third 51-53 56-58 2 Fourth 50 60 Fire Pump 3 (Not in Operation) 4 Second 54 56 5 First 56 Pump Curve 0 * Existing Operation - New pumping facilities are currently under design. ro m 3 U 0 U 0 Q - r rr MIN M M m m m M am r TABLE 4-8 BOOSTER FACILITIES Power Pump Design Location Unit Manufacture Type Manufacture O(Qpm) ** TDH(ft) RPM Horsepower Reservoir Hill 1 G. E. Elect. Peerless 2150 75 1,600 50 2 Waukesha Ntrl.Gas DeLaval (Not used) 3 Waukesha Ntrl.Gas Johnston 3,250 70 1,250 - 4 Baldor Elect Kirst 50 162 3,450 5 5 U.S. Elect Aurora 400 70 1,760 10 Peck 1 & 2 Waukesha Ntrl.Gas Johnston 4,635 193 1,200 - 3 Waukesha Ntrl.Gas Johnston 4,635 203 1, 180 - Overmyer I 1 Fairbanks- Fairbanks- Morse Elect. Morse 1,300 140 1,750 60 to to 1,050 185 Ol s 2 Waukesha Ntrl.Gas Johnston 3,400 115 1,760 175 t0 to to 2,700 160 Overmyer II 3 Roline Ntrl.Gas Peerless 6,500 165 1,200 377 4 Roline Ntrl.Gas Peerless 6,500 165 1,200 377 a o Existing Operation - New pumping facilities are currently under design. n e** Operating capacities are greater than design capacities. m �i .t p The vast majority of the system consists of asbestos cement pipe installed since 1959, which is in generally good condition. Older areas of the City are mostly served by smaller diameter cast iron or steel mains with varying degrees of serviceability. Table 4-9 is an inventory of the asbestos cement, cast iron and steel pipe presently in the City's system. Hazen-Williams roughness coefficients were determined, dependent upon pipe age and / material. TABLE 4-9 PIPE INVENTORY Length Percent Type of Pipe Ft of Total Asbestos Pipe 2,376,128 94 Cast Iron Pipe 47,900 2 Steel CMLC 102,476 4 ' 2,526,504 100 Due to the nonuniformity of pipe materials, a Hazen-Williams "C" factor was developed for each type and age of pipe. A roughness coefficient that is a "system" coefficient (taking into account bends, valves, services, etc., along with roughness) was developed. Water system analysis reports for the cities of Santa Ana and Santa Barbara, prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation in January 1980 and April 1984, respectively, investigated these coefficients. In both cities, actual field tests were performed and coefficients derived to best represent the varying degrees of roughness due to the type and age of pipe. Using data from these two reports and other references, Hazen-Williams coefficients for the City's water system were developed. Table 4-10 summarizes these coefficients. r e k c c 4-6 r F TABLE 4-10 HAZEN-WELIJ"S rROUGHNESS COEFFICIENTS "C"VALUES YEAR OF INSTALLATION TYPE OF PIPE PRE-1936 1 -1 50 POST-1950 Cast Iron 60 70 120 Steel 60 70 120 Asbestos-Cement - - 130 r � � 4-7 PRESSURE ZONES Within the City's water service area, the ground surface elevations are relatively flat pthroughout, with the exception of the Reservoir Hill area. This 750-acre area shown in Figure 2-1 is located east of the Bolsa Chica area and rises to an elevation of approximately 127 feet. The adequate service of this area requires a separate, higher pressure zone to meet peak demands and fire flow requirements. Presently this pressure zone serves a tract of homes and a commercial development at the comer of Goldenwest and Yorktown. Currently, water is pumped from the city's main system into the higher pressure zone of the Reservoir Hill area. An assessment district is being established in this area to finance infrastructure improvements. A new pump station now under design will replace the existing station to serve this proposed area. 1 � r �a 4 r � C 1 e r � 4-7 r CHAPTER 5 COMPUTER MODEL DEVELOPMENT A computer model of the Huntington Beach distribution system was developed to assist in evaluation of the adequacy of existing facilities, for present conditions and under anticipated future demands. Steps in developing a computer model begin with establishing a network of pipes and nodes. A computer model is a representation of the actual water system and requires verification that the computed results approximate actual field conditions. Considerable data is required to prepare a computer model of a water system. Once the model is assembled, further refining, or calibrating, is required so that the model will accurately reflect the actual water system. 5-1 - WATER SOURCES The sources of water to a system can be modeled in three different manners: as a fixed hydraulic grade line (HGL), a fixed flow input or as a pump operating off of a pump characteristic curve. By simulating the source, or unknown, as a fixed HGL,the computer model will calculate the flow delivered to the system under a specified condition. Elevated tanks or reservoirs "floating" on the system are generally modeled as a fixed HGL. The City's system does ' not presently contain any facilities to be modeled by this method. The sources of water for the City's system consist of wells, MWD connections and reservoirs with booster stations. ' Wells 5 The wells are modeled by inputting the pump's characteristic curve and the suction HGL, or groundwater pumping level. As the model performs the necessary iterations to balance F the system, flows are taken from the characteristic curves at the pumping head calculated by the model. This process continues through each iteration until all flows and headlosses are balanced throughout the system. e As discussed in Chapter 4, the City operates the well pumps by setting the pump speed to achieve the desired rformance. The um seeds currently set b the City are assumed Pe pump P Y Y tY for the well operation in this study. Table 5-1 lists the wells modeled, the assumed 5-1 ' sowle Engfneerfnq Corparat6o i pumping levels as HGL elevations, and pump speeds. Due to the limited data on well pumping levels, the levels used for this study are assumed to be in the lower range of annual pumping levels. TABLE 5-1 WELLS - MODEL CONTROLS ASSUMED SUCTION HGL PUMP SPEED NODE WELL ELEVATION(FT) RPM 290 DYKE -34 1760 276 HB1 -98 1770 H132 Not in Model 1670 HB4 Not in Model 1584 270 HB5 -62 1666 274 HB6 -59 1030 264 HB7 -89 1108 284 HB9 -64 1648 286 HB 10 -55 1636 Boosters The boosters at Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs are also simulated by their respective pump characteristic curves. These two booster stations operate to hold a constant discharge pressure. The characteristic curves modeled simulate these set pressures up to the limits of the pump capacity. Figure 5-1 illustrates a typical composite characteristic curve use for the modeling of Peck and Overmyer boosters. As the flow increases beyond the capacity of the pump at its maximum speed, the discharge pressure decreases according to the characteristic curve. Peck Reservoir and Overmyer No.2 Reservoir are assumed to be half full.for the subject study. Although the booster facilities at Overmyer J Y � Y are actually two separate pump stations with individual discharge lines to the system, due to their close proximity, they will hydraulically operate as one unit. Therefore, both systems are modeled as one with a composite pump characteristic curve reflecting the ' designated order of operation. The discharge line is sized as an equivalent pipe of the two existing mains. Table 5-2 lists the assumed suction HGL elevations. 5-2 Bogle cnq►neerino carporaticn Example - Composite Characteristic Curve of Variable Speed Pump Characteristic Curve at Maximum Pump Speed W y = O ' � y Composite V Curve Simulating 2 Pump OperatiQn ' Point of Set Pressure I I I 1 Q Capacity ' FLOW 9 p Figure 5-1 6 joule�r.4lrreertr:q Eor.�o!a.lor: TABLE 5-2 ' BOOSTERS- MODEL CONTROLS Suction HGL Discharge Node* Booster Elevation(Ftl** Pressure ' 262 Peck 20 70 301 Overmyer 50 50 95 Reservoir Hill - Fixed demand out of system * See Plate 1 ** Peck& Overmyer Reservoirs assumed to be half full. MWD Connections ' The City operates the three imported water connections on a fixed flow basis. As opposed to maintaining a constant downstream pressure, all three connections maintain a constant set flow into the system and, because the feeder is at a higher HGL than that of the City's system, the flow is assumed to be supplied at any pressure required by the* 1 system. All of these connections are simulated in the computer model by inputting a fixed flow into the water system. The imported water connections are modeled as a positive fixed flow, and demands are modeled as "negative" flows. For the existing and ultimate peak hour conditions, these flows are assumed to be the allocated capacity, as shown in Table 5-3: ' TABLE 5-3 IMPORTED CONNECTIONS ALLOCATED CAPACITY i Allocated Ca acity nne n (GP r ' OC-9 4600 i OC-35 9000 ikoc-44 6700 E y TOTAL 20300 � z 5-3 ' Bcule cngtr.28�dn�corpora[for: 5-2 STORAGE FACILTIIES Because the City does not have a reservoir "floating" on the system, or at an elevation equivalent to the static HGL of the water system, Peck and Overmyer reservoirs are not directly simulated in a demand mode in the computer model. In the following chapter, a ' storage analysis is presented which evaluates the storage capacity of these facilities. 5-3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM For this study, only the 12-inch and larger pipes were modeled, with a few 8- and 10-inch pipes included to complete looping. The primary steps in developing the computer water model are establishing a network of pipes and nodes. Nodes represent points of ' intersection, changes in diameter, or locations where supply or demands are applied to the system. ' Data for each node includes the ground elevation, associated average demand and coordinates utilized in plotting the system. Each pipe is described by the two connection nodes, a length, diameter, and roughness coefficient. This computer model consists of approximately 250 pipes and 150 nodes. 5-4 MODEL CALIBRATION Once the City's water distribution system computer model was developed according the parameters discussed in the previous sections, it was necessary to test it against a known operational condition to calibrate the system to actual field observations. To confirm the system's operation, roughness coefficients and demand allocation, actual $ flow tests were performed in the field. Three separate tests were made by monitoring all water source inflow to the system by the City's telemetry system, and flow from an open ' fire hydrant. The fire hydrant flow was used in selected outlaying areas to increase the demand on the system. At the hydrant location, the flows and residual pressures were recorded. 1 y By using this field data, the computer model was actuated to simulate the conditions at the time of the tests. The model was run and the calculated system pressure at the hydrant was compared to the actual recorded pressure. r The following are the fire hydrant locations where the tests were performed: b 5-4 Eoz qe Engfneerfnq GOr,.^�raCfGr Test No. 1: Banning and Brookhurst ' Test No. 2: Alabama and Atlanta ' Test No. 3: Edinger and Bravata ' Once the actual system operation was established and the datum from which all recorded Y ' data was confirmed, the computer model calculated the pressures within three pounds per square inch. These results are within the acceptable limits of the model calibration. Details of the three analyses are contained in the Technical Appendix. 1 � e k r. y[ S aK V 1 5-5 Eoc.ile EnCfn�2rin4 Coraorett�n r ' CHAPTER 6 ' WATER SUPPLY ' This chapter includes a discussion of the regional water supplies available to the City, from MWD, OCWD and MWDOC; and alternative water supply sources. ' 6-1 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLIES The City receives MWD imported water from the Colorado River and the State Water Project (SWP) through the MWDOC facilities, and extracts groundwater from the basin managed by OCWD. Production rates from these sources during the period 1982-86 are tabulated in Table 6-1. TABLE 6-1 WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION Year Supply(acre-feet) % of Total Imported Ground Total Imported Ground Water Water Water Water 81-82 8,338 23,164 31,502 26 74 82-83 6,672 25,397 32,069 21 79 83-84 7,006 28,582 35,588 20 80. 84-85 8,145 27,767 35,912 23 77 85-86 11,178 25,479 36,657 31 69 86-87 11.696 25.683 37.379 31 69 Average 81-87 8,839 26,012 34,851 25 75 Southern California Water Supply Scenario Like most other areas of California, Orange County's population and economic growth is projected to continue well into the next century. By 2010, the six-county Southern California population is expected to grow from its current 15.3 million persons to 21.3 million persons, nearly a 40 percent increase in slightly more than two decades, according to the draft 1987 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) t baseline projections. 6-1 Bowie EnQu-m-erino Corporation 1 Similarly, Orange County's population is projected to grow by nearly 800,000 persons, a 36 percent gain over the next 23 years, reaching about 3.0 million by 2010. Demand for ' imported water will also increase substantially. The State Water Contractors of Southern California estimate that their demand for supplemental water will increase significantly, with shortages expected to reach 1.4 million acre-feet per year by 2010. By 2010, Orange ' County demand for imported water is projected to increase to 571,000 acre-feet per year under average climatic or normal conditions. During warm, dry years, this demand will ' increase by about 10 percent to 665,000 acre-feet per year. Southern California's dependency on the State Water Project (SWP) will sharply increase in future years with ' reduction on the Colorado River supply and increasing population. MWD has made an estimate of the potential level of water shortages that would occur with continued population growth and no new water supplies. This estimate assumes a dependable local supply available in local dry years and normal demands and projects shortages to begin in ' about 1990, reaching about 980,000 acre-feet per year in 2010, or 22 percent of demand (see Table 6-2). Orange County would be shorted probably in direct proportion to demands on the MWD system, or possibly under MWD's preferential rights formula based on agency taxes paid to MWD. a e ' 6-2 ' Boule Emcv^e?rbnq Corpora,== TABLE 6-2 ' COMPARISON OF DEPENDABLE WATER SUPPLIES WITH PROJECTED DEMANDS FOR MWD (MILLION ACRE-FEET) Year Existing Water Supplies 1980 1990 2000 2010 Local Surface and Groundwater 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 ' Wastewater Reuse (Existing Projects) 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 Imported ' Los Angeles Aqueducts 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 Colorado River(Firm Supply) 1.18 0.47 0.47 0.47 ' State Water Project 1.09 1.18 1.16 1.14 Total Water Supplies 4.00 3.41 3.39 3.37 Historical and Projected Water Demands 2.95 3.53 3.95 4.35 Surplus (or shortages) in Supplies 1.05 (0.12) (0.58) (0.98) Source: MWD Although a number of new water supply projects are being pursued, none of these has yet been realized. Alternatives under consideration include construction and permitting of use of additional SWP Delta pumps, development of the Kern Water Bank, freeing up carriage water releases in the Delta that would be made possible by eliminating reverse flows by certain Delta improvements (Costa-Ayala Authorization Bills), interim leasing of Federal Central Valley Project water under the terms of the Coordinated Operation Agreement Legislation BM113, construction of Los Banos Grandes Reservoir, and water salvage in the Imperial Valley. The yield for all, except the water salvage programs in the ' 4 Imperial Valley, will depend upon the terms and conditions on water right permits to be established by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in the ongoing ' Bay/Delta Hearings. 6-3 ' sc;L a Er;Q,1neer1r:=Cor3ora.•ton a In addition to average climatic, or normal conditions, efforts are being made to increase supplies available during droughts through a combination of carryover storage projects ' and temporary agricultural demand reduction programs. Under drought conditions, the supply from the SWP can be reduced by over 1.0 million acre-feet per year, a major portion of the project capacity. Under a repeat of the critical drought hydrologic conditions that occurred between 1928-34 in the Sacramento River Basin, this shortage would persist for nearly seven years. The Bay/Delta water quality plan and water right decision will also set conditions for dry or critical dry years on both the amount of export ' from the Delta and salinity standards. It is anticipated that in addition to salinity increases, the concentration of organic precursors, which affect the formulation of disinfection by-products, would also increase due to less flows available for dilution during critical dry years. Orange County Water District's efficient management of its local water supply has reduced water demands on the SWP. The Lower Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin is one of the most thoroughly managed basins in the State through its planned maximum utilization of storage and the availability of flexible pumpage control features. However, substantially all Orange County local water supplies have been developed. Feasibility ' investigations are underway by local agencies for development of the small remaining increments of local supply,particularly,wellhead treatment projects. 1 Imported Water Suvnly tIn addition to actively supporting the needed SWP expansion discussed above, MWD is q pursuing several innovative regional programs that would indirectly have a positive effect ' on the City. These programs include Chino Basin groundwater storage and conjunctive use, Diemer Filtration Plant expansion and retrofit, and support for development of a ' new major South Orange County Supply currently being investigated by MWDOC. The a South County Supply would result in a better balance of water delivery throughout Orange County, and would reduce South County demands on North County feeders. F A survey of ten other major cities in North Orange County indicates that MWD connection capacity averages 180 percent annual water demand, whereas the City's capacity is only 90 percent. An additional connection capacity of 45 cfs would be required ' for the City to attain the higher rate,which is not currently available. i 8 6-4 ' Eoa„fe Er:g1r7eer1nC7 corporation s MWD has been considering the implementation of a seasonal pricing strategy designed to reduce large agencies' dependency on the imported water supply to meet peaking demands, and reduce their need to expand water treatment facilities for Orange County. Local agencies would then be forced to utilize more groundwater. However, it is uncertain whether or not it will be physically possible for OCWD to replenish the groundwater reserve at substantially higher rates. MWD is now considering a policy of underwriting the cost of developing additional local wells for seasonal peaking purposes. Groundwater Supply Within the boundaries of OCWD, it has been estimated that, by the year 2005, the total demands for water from the agencies overlying the groundwater basin will increase to over 550,000 acre-feet per year. If OCWD is to maintain its present level of groundwater availability,the groundwater production in the year 2005 will need to increase by 330,000 acre-feet. It is uncertain whether or not it will be physically possible to replenish the subsurface reserve at a rate that could offset this level of annual requirements. OCWD has suggested that water planners in the District should anticipate that ultimately only 50 percent of their supply will be furnished from the groundwater reserve. The ultimate' long-range effective yield of the basin, therefore, would be 275,000 acre-feet annually, presuming that MWD will continue to support conjunctive use of surface and groundwater supplies by furnishing replenishment water. It is possible that OCWD will s be able to expand the utility of the basin to keep pace, at least partially, with the anticipated growth of its member agencies. OCWD is expanding its replenishment facilities to include newly acquired property in the Santiago Creek area which should accommodate an additional 30,000 acre-feet per year, and a new 40-acre site in Anaheim, designed to accept another 25,000 acre-feet per year. When completed, it is estimated that OCWD will have the capacity to percolate 180,000 acre-feet per year of local water runoff, plus an additional 65,000 acre-feet of imported waters. If MWD is unable to acquire sufficient water resources to sustain either its present level of service or its future anticipated requirements and OCWD has to rely on the safe yield . of the Santa Ana River system below Prado Dam for its groundwater replenishment source, the current production of groundwater would have to be drastically curtailed, possibly to as little as 100 000 acre-feet per year or slightlyless than half of resent � P Y � P Y P pumping volumes. 6-5 COL(fE=^QFT:H�S"r94�c3rac:a:FJ!7 There have been a number of estimates of the usable capacity of the groundwater basin. The results of these somewhat speculative determinations range from 1.0 to 10.0 million acre-feet. OCWD's current estimates tend to be closer to 1.0 million acre-feet or less. It is known that the basin historically has been overdrafted by as much as 650,000 acre-feet. 0 Based on that and the other data available, OCWD suggests that 800,000 acre-feet of usable emergency storage capacity be used for planning purposes with the current county- wide well configuration. It may be possible to expand the usable capacity to as much as 1.5 million acre-feet by deepening wells. This increased supply might require additional treatment to remove objectionable taste and odors from peat-influenced supply drawn from those deeper zones and should not be counted on without further study. Utilization of the basin would be different under a drought than during an emergency. If MWD is experiencing difficulty in sustaining deliveries because of supply limitations, it will request its agencies to draw upon their interruptible supply. Orange County will have ' a 30,000 to 40,000 acre-foot increase in basin demand, assuming the same drought conditions impairing MWD are affecting the Santa Ana River Basin, this will result in a* possible one-year overdraft of as much as 300,000 acre-feet, leaving the basin with approximately 500,000 acre-feet available. Presuming the drought persists, by implementing an aggressive water conservation program, it would be possible to stretch groundwater supplies for two to three years for the agencies overlying the basin, thereby allowing whatever limited Metropolitan supply is available to be used by nonbasin agencies. If Southern California were toe experience a major earthquake uake that caused a break in xP q either or both of the aqueducts supplying Metropolitan, there would have to be re-routing of groundwater from basin users to those areas with limited or no storage. Depending upon the time of year, there should be between 500,000 to 800,000 acre-feet in storage. This water would be allocated carefully. It appears that under most circumstances, Orange County could get by for at least one year with the basin as its sole water source. During that time, repairs could be made to the major imported water facilities, and the County could again obtain an outside supply. Similar action would be required if an earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood fault caused damage to the local MWD feeders OCWD is pursuing the development of several potential water resources projects, as s outlined on Table 6-3. One of these projects, the Los Angeles County Underflow Loss 6-6 F3c:-seE::�:s^eer:^,�'cs�ore:rcr* Mitigation Project, may be a source of supplemental supply for the City, and is further discussed in a later section of this Chapter. � TABLE 6-3 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL YIELD FROM POTENTIAL WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS (IN AC-FT/YR) Normal Drought Projects Hydrologic Conditions Conditions Resource Development Above Prado Prado Reservoir Conservation 20,000 -0- San Bernardino Basin Storage Reduction 10,000 -0- Chino Basin Storage Program 10,000 10,000 Arlington Subbasin Desalter 2,000 (a) 2,000 Artificial Recharge Capability Improvement • Recharge Enhancement �b� Land Acquisition Santiago Creek Recharge Facilities 2,000 (b&c) -0- Groundwater Loss Mitigation/Restoration Underflow Loss Mitigation 10,000 5,000 Wellhead Treatment (e) 10,000 10,000 Wastewater Reuse Green Acres 7,000(d) 7,000 Forebay Reclamation Plant 10,000 10,000 Total 81,000 44,000 a Range is 1,000 to 2,000 ac-ft/yr. Additional Yield is included as part of Prado Reservoir Conservation;facilities are needed to yield capture new 'eld from projects above Prado Dam. P Includes 2,000 ac-ft/yr of Santiago Creek water. �c) d) Initial Yield is 3,5000 ac-ft/yr; 7,000 ac-ft/yr is yield of expanded project. (e) Wellhead treatment requires additional replenishment water ' to maintain basin water levels 0 S x Source: Water Suppl Management Within Orange -Exhibit 2- y g b Bay/Delta Hearings-Phase I-Water Advisory Committee of Orange County-June 12, 1987. 6-7 aow.e Enci;eerinq corporarsc^ Groundwater levels in Orange County have been significantly higher than elevations in adjacent Los Angeles County. This difference in elevation results in a gradual loss of water from the subsurface of the Orange County groundwater basin into Los Angeles County because there is no subsurface separation of the sediments that underlie Los Angeles County from the aquifer systems of Orange County. It is believed that the annual loss varies between 5,000 and 20,000 ac-ft/yr. For planning purpose, the District estimates that the current underflow loss averages about 10,000 ac-ft/yr. A variety of proposals have been advanced on how best to correct this loss. The OCWD, because of the particular sensitively of this effort, intends to carefully monitor the differences in water levels along the Orange County-Los Angeles County line by installing sufficient piezometric capacity to adequately evaluate the volume of flow. The District would then proceed in several ways to mitigate the loss, by 1) encouraging nearby water pumpers to withdraw larger amounts of groundwater each year in this area to thereby, approach water table equilibrium in the area of suspected outflow, or 2) installing several wells, adequately spaced along the west County line to intercept the subsurface outflow. OCWD has been negotiating with the Southern California Water Company (SCWC) to jointly implement this project. However, the negotiations have not proceeded successfully, and OCWD may consider another water pumper such as the City of Huntington Beach to pursue the project. Although a major transmission system would be required to convey supply from this project to the City, its supplemental yield would meet �. a significant portion of the City's supply deficiencies. 6-2 ALTERNATIVE SUPPLY SOURCES The following section discusses the feasibility of several potential alternative water supply 9 sources that could be developed by the City. These sources are: a o Additional Wells o Water Reuse y o Seawater Desalination o West Orange County Wellfield o Water Conservation 6-8 3..:,e,dSe�..^.gd�aer?rT�CorR3ra:fo r� d Additional Wells Additional wells could be drilled to extract additional groundwater supply for the City. r As will be discussed further in Chapter 7, the operating capacity of the presently operating City wells is less than the existing average annual water demand. A survey of ten other major cities in North Orange County indicated that well capacity averages 118 percent of average production rates. To attain this level of reliability, the City would have to construct two wells to meet current demand and a total of four wells for ultimate demands. Assuming studies verify the cost-effectiveness of groundwater treatment for color and odor removal, the City should renovate and reactivate the two presently inactive wells to help meet these needs. g Analysis of additional well requirements is further discussed in Chapter 7. Water Reuse Several locations where City potable water supply is presently used for irrigation could be potentially served by future phases of the Green Acres project proposed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD). The Green Acres project is a program to furnish reclaimed wastewater for landscaping and industrial purposes within a five mile radius of P g the OCWD's Water Factory 21 advanced reclamation facility. The project will consist of a new reclamation plant located adjacent to Water Factory 21 that will filter and chlorinate secondary treated effluent, produced by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Plant (CSDOC) No. 1 in Fountain Valley, and a distribution system to convey reclaimed water to the cities of Fountain Valley and Santa Ana, County of Orange, and the Mesa Consolidated Water District. The initial phase of this project is designed to furnish about 2,700 AF annually to about 20 locations. It is anticipated that the ultimate requirement for reclaimed water in the Green Acres service area will be ' 5,300 afy or more. The physical facilities to be built for Phase I of the Green Acres project will include modifications at Water Factory 21. The treated water will be pumped and conveyed through the service area in an array of pipes consisting of about 68,000 feet of pipe ranging in diameter between 6- and 30-inches. The water will be used for irrigating parks, golf courses,green belts, school grounds, and for industrial applications. 6-9 Sadie EnQfneertna�or.Scratt^.e Green Acres qualifies for assistance from MWD as a part of the Local Projects Program, gr whereby MWD will reimburse OCWD the avoided energy cost which in 1987 is $75 an acre-foot. The program also qualifies for construction assistance from the State of California. An application for low interest loan funds in the amount of $2,000,000 is expected to be approved which will reduce the net cost of the capital facilities required by this project. Initiation of Phase I construction of the project is contingent on receipt of this loan, and completion of user contract negotiations. Major potential customers of the Green Acres project in the City include: o Golden West College o Huntington Beach Central Park o Huntington Seacliff Golf Course The average irrigation demand for reclaimed water at the above three locations is �. approximately 850 afy, or about two percent of the total existing water demand in the City. In order to provide a substitute reclaimed water supply to these customers, the following � action would be necessary:, 1. Implementation and construction of Phase I of the Green Acres project by OCWD. 2. Phase II extension of the Green Acres project facilities to the City, to be implemented either by the City, OCWD, or a joint effort. 3. Execution of a contract with the users for reclaimed water utilization. 4. Construction of onsite facilities and replumbing. i Although construction of a irrigation reclaimed water system in the City would slightly decrease the average demand for potable water, it would appear that water reuse is not an effective source of peaking water, since irrigation demands are primarily during the evening and night time hours. The maximum capacity of Green Acres project, including delivery to the City, has been previously estimated at a unit cost of $318 per acre-foot, assuming capital recovery of 12 percent. Since treated, non-interruptible supply costs from MWD are not expected to exceed that rate until after 1993, further evaluation of water reuse to help meet average City water requirements is warranted at that time, assuming Phase I of the Green Acres project has been constructed. 6-10 9 v Seawater Desalination A potential method of providing supplemental future potable water supplies for the City is seawater desalination, either through the distillation or reverse osmosis (RO) s membrane processes. Although distillation has historically been the predominant process, RO is now cost competitive. RO also removes nonelectrolytes such as organic compounds dissolved in the water, which is particularly important when potable water production is considered. ' The RO process uses hydraulic pressure to force pure water from saline feedwater through a semipermeable membrane. Current technology permits the economic $ application of RO to the desalting of brackish waters and seawater. Generally, the membranes used in the RO process are either cellulose acetate or polyamide materials. RO membranes can be manufactured to have a salt rejection which conforms to the feedwater salinity. To achieve potable quality product water, seawater requires salt rejections greater than 98 percent. Operating pressures of 800-1000 psi are required for the desalination of seawater. Membrane life for seawater operation is normally assumed' to be two to three years. Two types of RO membranes configuration are currently used commercially: spiral wound and hollow fiber; these are shown schematically on Figure 6-1. The energy required by the RO process is primarily for pumping; it is generally supplied as electric power. The cost of high pressure pumps for seawater desalination has a significant effect on the economics of the process. Typically, power consumption is 25- F 35 ktwh/1,000 gallons of production at 800 to 1,000 psi operating pressure for seawater plants utilizing energy recovery. The recovery ratio at which an RO plant should be operated depends upon an economic evaluation. RO applied to seawater is limited to about 30 percent hydraulic recovery because of the high operating pressures needed to exceed the osmotic pressure differential across the membrane. The addition of a power recovery turbine driven by the brine discharge to provide part of the high pressure feed pumping has been considered for seawater RO plants to reduce power consumption. This generally results in an energy a savings of 30 to 40 percent. 6-11 rsowe i Reverse osmosis is a desalting process that is in use throughout the world. It is used in highly developed countries like the United States where maintenance and operation � (O&M) resources are readily available and is used in remote locations in many third x world countries where O&M resources are not available. The generally accepted advantages of RO for desalting are: o Lower energy consumption and costs o Lower maintenance o Simple operation o Reduced corrosion o Compact size o Short installation time o Lower capital costs O&M for RO has been demonstrated to be relatively low. Operation is relatively simple and may be started and stopped without difficulty. In addition, RO may be contracted in modules so that the plant can be maintained or expanded without complete shutdown. Desalination of seawater would be highly reliable source of water supply for the City as it has very few development constraints. One constraint to desalination is that it is an energy-intensive process. However, energy recovery systems have been recently made ravailable,thus energy requirements, particularly on seawater systems, have been reduced. Saline water is available on a firm basis and can be developed independent of other water resources. A desalting system can be easily incorporated into existing water distribution system. Another advantage of any reverse osmosis system is that it can be installed within a relativelyshort period of time; a 3 m d capacity plant was installed in Florida seven P � g P tY months after award of the contract. � E The principal constraint to development of seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) systems is the significant cost differential with conventional water supply sources. Approximate costs for developing a SWRO system as a City water supply are shown in Table 6-4,with a component cost breakdown in Table 6-5. - r } 11 6-12 1 FEEDWATER IN HOLLOW Fl BER PRODUCT WATER 44- -mm-ox2v...... MINE OUT CONCENTRATE .......... = OUT RESIN TUBE SHIEET HOLLOW FIBER SYSTEM FEEDWATER MEMIBRANE CASE ON BACKING PRODUCT WATER CARRIER NMBRANE CAST ON BACKING FEEDWATER CONCENTRATED SOLUTION LEAVES THROUGH 8RIN. E SIDE SPACER FEED SPACER PURIFIED WATER PASSES THROUGH MEMBRANE FRO14 BOTH SIDES OF FEEDWATER PRODUCT WATER CHANNEL '-BRINE SEAL PRODUCT PRODUCT WATER FLOWS SPIRALLY-IN PRODUCT WATER CARRIER. LAST LAYER CONTACTS HOLES IN MINE CONCENTRATE PRODUCT TUBE-FOR EXIT TO COLLECTION SYSTM. SPIRAL WOUND SYSTEM Reverse Osmosis Membrane Configurations Figure 6-1 7 t � TABLE 6-4 SWRO SYSTEMS COSTS' d P Capacity Construction O&M Cost Unit Cost ($IAF) _ MGD Cost ($M) M ear Cap.Recv. O&M Total 1 5.2 1.4 475 1250 1725 5 20.7 6.1 375 1100 1475 10 40.4 11.0 350 1000 1350 " Based on recent construction bid data. TABLE 6-5 j SWRO SYSTEM COMPONENT COSTS Cost • Item 1 mgd 5 mW �. Construction Cost ($) Pre-treatment facilities 700,000 1,800,000 Reverse osmosis system -Equipment 3,000,000 13,100,000 - Membranes 1,100,000 5,000,000 - Structures and Improvements 400,000 800,000 c Subtotal $4,500,000 $18,900,000 a Total $5,200,000 $20,700,000 O&M Cost (S/Year) 6 { Pre-treatment 300,000 1,500,000 y Reverse osmosis system - Membrane replacement 300,000 1,400,000 -Energy 450,000 2,200,000 - Other 350,000 1,000,000 Subtotal $1,100,000 $4,600,000 ' Total $1,400,000 $6,100,000 � 6-1 3 BOCi°e E Q1neerinc;=on=0rarion It is recommended that the City investigate the feasibility of a SWRO supply in more detail, including water quality and pretreatment requirements, optimum membrane G configuration, and specific cost estimates for demonstration and full scale facilities West Orange County Wellfield The potential for the City to become involved in the OCWD program for Los Angeles County Underflow Loss Mitigation was outlined earlier. For the City to realize additional supply from this source, it would be necessary to accomplish the following: (1) participate with OCWD in joint development of a West Orange County Wellfield adjacent to the Los Angeles County line; (2) Participate in construction of new transmission facilities between the wellfield and the West Orange County Water Board (WOCWB) Feeder No. 2; and (3) Negotiate a utilization increase in the WOCWB Feeder No.2. New construction outside the City would include: three or more wells, approximately 21,000 linear feet of 30-inch through 18-inch pipeline, and system interconnections as shown on Figure 6-2. Estimated construction cost is approximately $5.7 million. MWD water supplied from OC-9 and OC-35 is conveyed through the WOCWB Feeder No. 1 and 2 according to the following capacity allocation: Feeder No. 1 Feeder No. 2 Flow(cfs) Flow(cfs) Agggcy 0aTty Use Capacity Use City of Huntington Beach 10 10 20 20 City of Westminster 7 0 12 4 City of Seal Beach - - 10 5 9 Cily of Garden Grove 4 0 5 3 Total 21 10 47 32 Q$i r 6-14 ��cr9�=n�f^e�<Ire��osp�rtfa? Although the City normally utilizes the maximum allocated capacity of Feeder No. 2, the other entities do not. There is a potential for increasing the WOCWB Feeder No. 2 rutilization and OC-35 supply to provide additional system inflow to the City. Similar opportunities may exist with the WOCWB Feeder No. 1 and OC-9 supply. Water Conservation California's water is a scarce and valuable natural resource. A major source of additional water supply is found in water conservation programs. By effectively instituting a water conservation program, the City can expect to reduce the present unaccounted-for water (as discussed in Section 3.2) and average system demand. The benefit of such programs will likely outweigh the cost of their implementation. As referred to in Boyle's August 1982 "Municipal Leak Detection Program" prepared for the State Department of Water Resources, each acre-foot of water conserved may be valued at $185 (escalated to present day costs) to develop, treat, transport and distribute. This value relates to nearly $70,000 for each percent of the City's average annual demand conserved. MWD is presently initiating pilot programs to study this level of benefits to be expected from water conservation programs. Five programs identified by MWD appear to be directly applicable to the City's water system. Although there is not sufficient data available to accurately estimate the expected amount of water to be conserved, the following five programs have been identified due to their greater potential for water conservation. Leak Detection Techniques used to identify and locate municipal water system leakage range from visual observation and isolated sector consumption studies to use of sophisticated leak detection equipment (oscilloscopes, microprocessors, accelerometers, and amplifiers). Leak detection can be accomplished with basis acoustical equipment that identifies the sound of escaping water; more sophisticated equipment is used to obtain a higher degree of R accuracy in pinpointing leaks. In addition to conserving water by identifying and repairing leaks, the amount of water conserved also directly decreases the quantity of unaccounted-for water. 1 6-15 Eo&j e Erglr;eerin4 COrIVOratIO a � 0 Toilet Leak Repair This program would consist of an audit of residential neighborhoods to identify homes j with leaky toilets. Once identified, the resident would be notified to repair the leak. a iResidential Water Audits Specific residential dwellings would be targeted by possibly a water bill analysis to identify large residential users. These customers would then be contacted by phone to offer advice on water conservation and to set up a site visit to audit the current water usage. Low Flow Showerheads The distribution of low flow showerheads can be accomplished by either mailing to customers or delivering and possible installing by city staff. MWD identifies that the delivery and installation produces higher results, however not necessarily exceeding the cost/benefit of those mailed to customers. Erocess Water Audits Under this program, the larger non-residential customers are identified to coordinate a water audit of their present usage. Process changes and water saving devices could be recommended and an analysis of potential savings be performed. r y a �py A 6 6-16 Bct-=Pp�ngrneer9nq moo.<1�ara`ton s r�s on M M M no Mr M M M r M aw r it � • /r J., :•�1' ', ... ..1 a, _ 4-A, ,�. ti, r4 11:j r.I'R: • 1: r, ' _I , O�I•IM '50.rj 17 1-11 - _-� ... •.'.. -r�`IwW •a-; 1.- u:' �- • - �f: .-,lu J� -_. Hawaiian _ II _ :' •I Gardens Is _ `,. _ .. .., � •. loin...±� `U 1 x• i,'�i�1.18 I .,I,r� I - • • • • • •I � I•�i \I - a I 44 — 1 • • • • • • • • i . _ r' ANARMIM • 'I' I`rl� �I�I tl tt.�� F� "".. • 0 • • Q.,• • • I: n 1 t ''.a tt:1�^ I � � z .�---.rr._4 ' _ _ ' 1• <s(� A,LPofLahfia 00 _ r i 1 1 Wel�rl �rt' e Wei ''eId 1 r .1 .Ic !r I. •�# !�.• uw,.. .c 1 1 e _t 1. - •� r+�1 I %: h III �^ 1-LRR m I r•2p PVL -2t- I _I� ,vL :23-. - ran a ou „....=_ ,lulu,lluuunn .. „ 1=e8f• OXON it- +Z � I ■M U. Iw •-• • •r�ir' �_1 .�'., 1-. / ICI. 31 l _ ; ` l • '?� � I -. ..n`q.«i.,.u� - .��C�+" `T„"V��n���� .. .. �I ... _.. . .... .. ,�- tt#�o'I:I:�in�v( ansmission. Route A' _` II �e ice. •Il;.r.,y f f f 44 v. ~• `T .# ..m o eder No. 2 - k 1 r _ Ak11RM.ukV\!. I ON a`. 1 %RMf11 IIIRCE5 R1 SI.R\1, t IA felt 1 I ......... ',,. .\ . Figure 6-2 't11SsI11001 " Potential West Orange County Wellfield -- r� ' 7. & Transmission Facilities Q ; 4qDO I. A 11 I 1' (1 5 F CHAPTER 7 a WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS 5 The City's water distribution system was evaluated with the computer model under standard design criteria. This criteria analyzes the system's operation during peak hour demands, and its adequacy to meet required fire flows during maximum day demands for existing and ultimate development conditions. Existing and ultimate projected peak hour demands, three existing and six ultimate fire flow conditions were modeled to adequately ' evaluate the City's system. Using the results of the computer model, an in-depth analysis of the water system's facilities was performed. All computer runs utilized for this report are presented in the separately bound Technical Appendix. Several aspects of the Water Department management are operations addressed at the end of the chapter. Table 7-1 presents a summary of existing and ultimate water demands, together with system supply and delivery capacities. 'b �1 7-1 1 3cc3:e Er=tr.1eer1r7=Cor^Orate=,- a TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF WATER DEMANDS AND SYSTEM CAPACITY 5 Ultimate with without Item Existing Bolsa Chica Bolsa Chica Water Demand ('gpm) Average Annual 22,609 26,082 25,062 Maximum Month 128%) 28,940 33,385 32,079 Peak Week (162%) 36,627 42,253 40,600 Maximum Day (243%) 54,940 63,379 60,900 Peak Hour (400%) 90,400 104,300 100,200 System Capacity ( Wells 21,200 Imported Water 20,300 Subtotal- Supply Sources 41,500 Booster Stations* **31,200 Total - Delivery Capacity **72,700 Excludes capacity of Wells 2 and 4 pumping directly to Peck Reservoir (4,400 gpm). Based on operating capacities of booster stations. a A 7-1 EXISTING SYSTEM The existing water system was evaluated to test its present adequacy to deliver peak hour demands and fire flow requirements. Although recommended system improvements a discussed in the following sections were identified to meet ultimate conditions, the computer model of the existing system was used to identify deficient areas in order to prioritize improvements. K Three fire flow runs of the computer model illustrate that the water system�is generally F adequate to meet required fire flows. However, the existing system is not sufficient to meet fire flow conditions at the Peter's Landing area in Huntington Harbour due to large 5 � fire flows required for this intense commercial development usage. Table 7-2 lists the tested locations and the respective available fire flows: I 7-2 Boc.le,Enolneerin=�orpera[!o^ TABLE 7-2 EXISTING FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS Required Available E Fire Flow Fire Flow @ 20 PSI @ 20 PSI Node Location PM GPM 6 Brookhurst & Banning 2000 4110 190 Huntington Harbour Mall 4500 4658 220 Peter's Landing 6000 2593 The City's present inflow capacity to the system is not sufficient to meet existing peak hour demands. The present maximum operating capacity of the system is approximately 72,700 gpm. Compared to the existing peak hour demand of approximately 90,400 gpm, this results in a deficiency of 17,700 gpm. The existing peak hour .demand analysis demonstrates the immediate need to increase flow input to the system either from additional source capacity (groundwater or imported water capacity) or storage and boosting facilities or both. Additionally, as demands approach the system's present capacity, low pressures are encountered in the southern portion of the City where source facilities are not located. The existing demand analysis discussed above indicates that the City presently cannot tdeliver sufficient water under peak hour conditions, and the existing deficiency of 17,700 gpm is critical. Although the City system has not been previously forced to supply peak hour demands, such a condition could easily occur. During previous demand periods at slightly less than peak hour conditions, the system has operated at maximum conditions, and reservoir levels were still dropping drastically. In addition, City water system operations personnel have observed increasing trends of low system pressures and difficulty in conveying water to the southeast portion of the City. � The City should take immediate action to remedy existing fire flow and peak hour a deficiencies. In addition, the City faces increasing risk by adding new services to the E presently deficient system. 7-3 Soule craS-:eer973c ccrpOravor; i 7-2 ULTIMATE SYSTEM The ultimate water system analysis consists of six fire flow tests, peak hour demands ' analysis, and service for the ultimate development of the Reservoir Hill Assessment District and the Bolsa Chica area. All improvements identified in this study are based on ultimate system conditions. The following sections describe in detail the complete system analysis. 1 -7 3 SOURCE ANALYSIS From the Water Supply Analysis in Chapter 6, the following can be drawn: 1. Regional imported supplies may not be readily expanded in the future due to MWD delivery system restrictions and programs to reduce local agency peaking flows; 2. Regional groundwater supplies may not be readily expanded in the future due to ' challenges in further optimization of groundwater recharge, and the OCWD longterm goal of reducing local agencies' basin production percentage to approximately 50 percent. 3. Development of the West Orange County wellfield may result in additional City supply,but significant institutional implementation must be accomplished. 4. Alternative source supplies such as water reuse or seawater desalination are G technically viable, but remain either very expensive, or not directly responsive to the City's principal need for supplemental peaking supply. Because of the above restrictions, emphasis should be placed on a self-sufficient program by the City to meet current and projected deficiencies. r. 100 Percent Wells1100 Percent Import Analysis The water stem was additionally evaluated to stud its performance under conditions system Y Y where either imported water is not available or all wells are incapacitated. For existing conditions, the design groundwater capacity (27,500 gpm) is greater than the existing average annual demand (AAD) 22,609 gpm. However, the operating well capacity i � (21,200 gpm) is only 94 percent of existing AAD, or 81 percent of the ultimate AAD with Bolsa Chica Service (26,082 gpm). Therefore, under emergency conditions in which imported water may not be available, the wells would not be able to continuously supply the average annual demand unless additional wells were constructed. e i � 7-4 ye 4, 4 s A supply source of 100 percent imported water augmented by the storage capacity could r G also only meet the average annual demand for existing and ultimate conditions for a limited time. Table 7-3 summarizes the results of this analysis. The computer model was utilized to analyze the actual system performance under these conditions of 100 percent groundwater supply or 100 percent imported water supply. For both scenarios, the system was able to deliver the average annual demand at required pressures. These computer runs are presented in the separately bound Technical Appendix. TABLE 7-3 EMERGENCY SOURCE ANALYSIS No. of Days of Emergency Supply Existing Ultimate Demand Demand (,26082 gpm AAD) (22609gpm AAD) W/New Storage W/Out New Storage 100% Imported Sus u ply 10.8 8.9 5.4 (20,300 gpm� 100% Groundwater Supply 19.9 11.5 6.9 (21,200 gpm) ' Additional Well Requirements Assuming a rated capacity of 3,000 gpm, one additional well would have to be drilled now, and one additional well later to meet ultimate average demands. As indicated in Chapter 6, a total of four additional well supplies are necessary to meet ultimate demands ' at the typical groundwater capacity rate (118 percent of average production). The analysis is shown in Table 7-4. Assuming inactive Wells 8 and 11 can be reactivated with groundwater treatment facilities, two additional wells would need to be drilled. Hypothetical locations for the new wells are near the intersections of Golden West Street and McFadden Avenue, and Gothard Street and Slater Avenue. L 7-5 ScLaa Encine2ftRQ con2ofot do^ i6 4 i TABLE 7-4 ' SUPPLEMENTAL WELL REQUIREMENTS Ultimate with without Item E3daing Bolsa Chica Bolsa Chica Average Annual Water 22,609 26,082 25,062 Demand (AAD) (gpm) Typical Well Capacity 26,679 30,777 29,573 (AAD x 1.18) gpm City Operating Well 21,200 21,200 21,200 Capacity(gpm) 9 City Groundwater Supply Deficiency -Average Demand 1,409 4,882 3,862 ' -Typical Well Capacity 5,479 9,577 8,373 I Supplemental Wells Required (3,000 gpm capacity) . -Average Demand 1 2 1 -Typical Well Capacity 2 4 3 74 STORAGE ANALYSIS Storage requirements are normally based on the following components: 1. Operational Storage 2. Fire Storage 3. Emergency Storage A i These components are discussed in detail as follows: a OPERATIONAL STORAGE Operational storage is required to meet the hour fluctuations in demand above the F available source inflow. This amount of storage is generally assumed to be equivalent to ' 25 percent of a maximum day's demand when the available source capacity is equivalent to the maximum day's demand. Because the City's available source of supply is 13,440 gpm less than the existing maximum day demand and 19,400 gpm for ultimate 7-6 SoLge=ngtneerinq Corporation A � conditions (21,879 gpm with Bolsa Chita), additional storage greater than the volume wrelated to 25 percent of maximum day demand is required to account for the lack of ' source capacity. a A detailed storage analysis was performed by analyzing the four maximum days of water consumption in relationship to a typical demand hydrograph. Figures 7-1, 7-2, and 7-3 summarize the storage analysis for existing, ultimate and ultimate with Bolsa Chica demands, respectively. The maximum four days of water usage was assumed to be two days of maximum day demands with daily demands before and after of 60 percent of the maximum day, as experience May 31 through June 3, 1982. The analysis performed, presented in the Technical Appendix, demonstrated the adequate filling of the reservoirs the first and last days during off-peak hours for existing demands, but inadequate replacement of water during the two consecutive days of maximum demand. Essentially, ' the quantity of water utilized by the system exceeds that of supply by approximately 48 mg for existing conditions and 64 mg for ultimate conditions (70 mg with Bolsa Chita.). FIRE STORAGE The required fire flows and durations discussed in Section 3-7 establish the necessary fire storage. The maximum ultimate fire flow within the city is identified by the Huntington Beach Fire Department as two simultaneous 5000 gpm fire flows for five hours, equivalent to 3.0 million gallons of storage. ' EMERGENCY STORAGE Emergency storage criteria is based on many factors. The general concept is to select an emergency storage volume that will be sufficient to supply the service area in time of planned or unplanned equipment outage, such as pump failure, power failure, pipeline breakage, etc. Emergency storage is also needed as protection in case of major disasters such as earthquake, or other catastrophic.events. This storage should be adequate to s provide uninterrupted service during such events. if In this area, it is common to adopt one to three average day's demand as the criterion for } emergency storage. Table 7-5 lists local agencies and their available emergency storage 4 capacity. Although the City does own 128 mg of capacity in the San Joaquin Reservoir, this volume of water cannot be considered as an emergency supply, and can only be transported into the system at a maximum rate of 6700 gpm, roughly 25 percent of the ultimate average annual demand rate. A flow test should be conducted on the San 7-7 So_-:e Enc7tneertnG Corporation i�r i i� ia• a■■ I i■• r■a i� �. r IMI 2W, Typical Four Da- Demand Hydroaraph Day,I go Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 60%Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands 60% Max. Day Demands Fig4re 7-1 Existing Demand Legend + Reservoirs Draining 1S - Reservoir Filling c G c o w Z E _ a 28.40 M E +28.40 M +2.5 MG 1 9 +2.50 MG a .44 MG +.44 MG Exleting o Supply 0 p 76 -1.02 MG 11.19 MG 9.04 M 12.08 MG -1.02 cA ii • � I I I I I I I I Cumulative Storage 2.50 MG 0 MG 28.40 MG 9.36 M 47.76 MG 1 35.68 MG 37.61 MG Required 0 1'2 1 12 12 12 1 12 1 12 ia• i� i� = = = = M = = r i1 = M = r Tvnicai our Da X Demand Hydrogranh Day,1 Day 2 Da 3 Da 4 60% Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands 60% Max. Day Demands Figure 7-2 Legend Ultimate Demand + Reservoirs Draining c 1 - Regervoir Filling c ie t] c o a Z E a m E E 1 +6.06 MG +35.80 MG 35.80 +6.06 MG 0 CPI Existing Supply also o. I -9.84 I1AG -7.86 MG -11.23 MG c I U. I I Z I I I I I I I s Cumulative Storage 6.06 MG 0 MG 35.80 MG .27.94 63.74 MG 52.51 MG 58.57 MG Required MG 01E2 1 1 12 1 2 1 12 M.D. Noon M.D. Noon M.D. Noon M.D. Noon M.n_ 2W, Typical Four Da- Demand Hydrograph Day,I Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 60%Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands Max. Day Demands 60% Max. Day Demands Figure 7-3 Legend Ultimate with Bolsa Chica + Reservoirs Draining 15 - Reservoir Filling .W G a ° O � 0 E 100- +38.88 MG 38.86M +7.56 MG +7.56 MG 0 m Ix Enisting s iy IL 5 ` -9.33 MG -7.38 MG I I ( ( ( I I Q I Cumulative Storage 7.58 MG 0 MG 38.88 MG 31.50 T0.38 MG 59.51 MG 6T.34 MG Required MG 01t2 1 12 12 12 1 12 1 12 M n- Nnnn M_D_ Nnnn M n Noon M in- Noon iin n 6 Joaquin Reservoir transmission main during a winter period without MCWD use to verify flow rates available to the City. TABLE 7-5 COMPARATIVE WATER STORAGE NUMBER OF AVERAGE DAYS OF EMERGENCY STORAGE 1 City of Huntington Beach 0 days* City of Santa Ana 0.4 days City of Hawthorne 0.7 days I City of Torrance 0.7 days ' City of Garden Grove 1.1 days City of Inglewood 1.4 days * Storage capacity in the San Joaquin Reservoir is only included as the maximum inflow from OC-14 (6700 gpm). Existing storage is less than operational and fire storage requirements. ' For this analysis, the recommended emergency storage volume was calculated by reducing the average day demand by the 6700 gpm flow capacity from the San Joaquin Reservoir. This relates to 26 mg of ultimate emergency storage for one day's average demand (28 mg ' with Bolsa Chica.) iTable 7-6 summarizes the complete storage capacity analysis for the City's system.ca p Although the additional required storage is identified in this report as one facility, 1 multiple smaller facilities at separate locations could be adequate. 3 o P 4 ►gg 9 7-8 1 Bot qe Er'=tnaerinQ Co=c7raVor^ k TABLE 7-6 4 STORAGE CAPACITY ANALYSIS Criteria Operational = Per detailed analysis (see Technical Appendix). Fire = Two simultaneous 5,000 gpm fire flows for five hours. ° Emergency = Minimum of one average day's supply Ultimate Ultimate without with Capacity Analysis Existing Bolsa Chica Bolsa Chica Avg. demand (gpm 22,609 25,062 26,082 Max. day demand (gpm) 54,940 60,900 63,380 Req'd Operational 47.8mg 63.7mg 70.4mg Req'd Fire 3.Omg 3.Omg 3.Omg Req'd Emergency 22.9ma 26.3mg 27/,7me ' Subtotal 73.7mg 93.Omg 101.1—Mg Existing Storage 2 40.5mg 40.5me 4 .5m ' Req'd Additional Storage 3 33.Omg 52.Omg 61.0mg Emergency storage is one average day's demand less 6700 gpm from OC-44. 2 Excluding San Joaquin Reservoir allocation of 128 mg. ' 3 May be reduced if supplemental wells are constructed. 7-5 BOOSTER ANALYSIS As mentioned in Section 7-1, the City's combined source and boosting capacity is not ' adequate for either existing or ultimate peak hour demand conditions. Due to this existing inadequacy,immediate attention should be given to improvements in this area. P For existing conditions, the system is deficient by 17,700 gpm to supply peak hour a demands, and 27,500 gpm (31,600 gpm with Bolsa Chica) for ultimate conditions. Due to y expected low pressures in the southern part of the City during extreme conditions, it is recommended that a booster/reservoir site be located in this area. Although three tlocations were evaluated for this site, all adequate to meet the projected deficiencies, storage/boosting facility sites at multiple locations would also adequately serve the system. The following three sites are shown on Figure 7-4: 7-9 ' Eu=sle Englneentnq Ellis ' Garfield m Yorktown City of Alt. 2 Huntington Beach Adams Adams Indianapolis , ' L m w °c Y City of z Costa Mesa ' A Alt. 3 ' Victoria Hamilton A c m o� y 1 Storage / Booster Site p Alternatives fps Figure 7-4 C Alternative 1: Atlanta and Bushard Alternative 2: Adams - East side of Santa Ana River Alternative 3: Hamilton-East side of Santa Ana River The site described as Alternative 1 was identified due to its location within the deficient y area of the system. This site is approximately 6 feet of elevation and would require pipeline improvements to adequately distribute water into the system. Edison High School located at this site, and there appears to be available area for proposed facilities. The second site, located on the north side of Adams Avenue just east of the Santa Ana River, was identified due to its location near the OC-44 connection. A third site, located ' on the north side of Hamilton just east of the Santa Ana River, appears to be advantageous due to the high ground elevation and the location within the City of Costa ' Mesa. However, both of these sites would require pipeline improvements to transmit flow to the City system. Although the required pumping head would be reduced due to ' the higher ground elevation, Site 3 would require approximately 3000 l.f. of 42 inch main q PP Y and bridge crossings to deliver water to the system, in addition to the pipeline improvements required for Alternative 1. The second and third sites would also require the acquisition of land from the City of Costa Mesa. Additional transmission main and land costs for Alternative 2 or 3 are estimated at approximately$1.8 million. Due to the large additional costs associated with Alternatives 2 or 3, only Alternative 1 is presented here in detail. Table 7-7 summarizes the required capacity of this storage/booster site near Atlanta and Bushard. A 5� i G h f w 7-10 ' 3^c.t'e Er�eneererFq�crporatt_^.ra i TABLE 7-7 & BOOSTER IMPROVEMENTS Proposed Location: Magnolia and Hamilton Req'd pumping head: 222 feet Ultimate Without With o Present Bolsa Chica Bolsa Chica Average Annual Demand 22,609gpm 25,062gpm 26,082gpm Peak Hour (PF=4.00) Demand 90,400gpm 100,200gpm 104,300gpm Sources - . Wells- 16,800 gpm* MWD -20,300 gpm Boosters - 35,600 gpm -72,700gpm -72,700gpm -72,700gpm Deficiency 17.700gpm 27.500gpm 31.600gpm 3 Standby' 6.500gpm 6.500gpm 6 5� 00gpm. Req'd Add'1 Booster Capacity*** 24,000gpm 34,0002 ppm 38,000ggppm 1 R (54cfs) (76cfs) (85cfs) " Assume largest well or booster pump is offline (Overmyer 3 or 4). ' a Excludes Wells 2 and 4 pumping directly to Peck Reservoir. *** May be reduced if supplemental wells are constructed. @F EgF; t e 7-6 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ANALYSIS The overall distribution network appears adequate to distribute peak hour flows and fire demands throughout the system, with the exception of fire requirements at the Peter's P Landing area in Huntington Harbor and peak hour service to an elevated area located at s Warner and Marina View Lane, rising to approximately 50 feet above sea level. Other d cross-ties are also identified in this section to increase the fire service throughout the system. Plate 1 identifies the recommended improvements for the ultimate system. Table 7-8 lists the fire flow locations evaluated under ultimate maximum day conditions and the available flow with proposed improvements. a 7-11 ' Smile En4lneerinp Corperat:^n 1 TABLE 7-8 ' ULTIMATE FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS Req'd Available n Fire Flow Fire Flow @ 20psi @ 20psi Node Location GPM GPM 28 Edison H.S. 5000 5547 46 Downtown 10,000" 12723 95 Reservoir Hill 6000 6000 c 154 Beach & Slater 4500 7192 220 Peter's Landing 6000 8765 222 Huntington Center 6000 10706 * Two simultaneous fires of 5,000 gpm each. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has identified a fire flow requirement of 6000 gpm for the intensive commercial development in the Huntington Harbour area. Presently, this area is served by a 12-inch main in Edinger Avenue and a 14-inch line in Warner Avenue Because of its distance from any source, the low pressures encountered a due to the h eadloss to this area are insufficient. S In Beach Boulevard, from Edinger Avenue to Ellis Avenue, two 8-inch lines (6-inch i between Ellis and Talbert) serve either side of this highway. However, in some places the east side is arbitrarily served from deadend lines originating from adjacent developments. To increase the flow capacity and the fire protection in Beach Boulevard, improvements shown on Plate 1 are recommended to develop continuous parallel 8-inch lines along the Boulevard with 12-inch cross-ties at every arterial intersection. The elevated area located in the vicinity of Warner and Marina View Lane referred to as Sunset Heights ranging in elevation from 50 to 66 feet, encompasses approximately 86 acres, with 90 percent of this area within the planned Bolsa Chica development. The 40 psi minimum pressure criteria established for this study during peak hour conditions could not be achieved for this area. Pipeline improvements (16-inch main from Springdale to Marina View Lane in Warner Avenue) increases the ultimate peak hour pressure to approximately 30 psi, still below the criteria established for this study. A 7-12 smaller reservoir/booster site in this area to serve the existing pressure zone would also achieve the minimum 40 psi criteria. This option is discussed further in Chapter 8. Table 7-9 summarizes the improvements identified for the ultimate distribution system, a including distribution mains required for the storage/booster site identified in Section 7- 5. TABLE 7-9 PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Diameter Length Location inches) feet 1. Sunset Heights Storage/Booster Facility -Bolsa St. -Booster to Warner 20 1,400 ' - Warner-Bolsa to Pacific Coast Hwy. 20 7,300 -Pacific Coast Hwy. (or alternative) - Warner to s/o Edinger 220 5.300 Subtotal 20 14,000 -Pacific Coast Hwy. (or alternative) - • Edinger to s/o Edinger 14 1,250 y 2. Beach Blvd. -East side - OCFCD C-6 to Warner, then to "A' St. 8 640 - Spear to Liberty 8 270 -Ronald to Talbert 8 820 Subtotal 8 1,730 3. Beach Blvd. cross-ties - at Slater 12 100 - at Graziadio 12 100 - at Indianapolis 12 100 - at Atlanta 12 100 Subtotal 12 400 4. Orange/Lake -from Downtown Loop to Alabama 12 700 5. Southeast Storage/Booster Facility - Hamilton-Brookhurst to Magnolia 20 5,210 - Magnolia-Hamilton to Banning 20 2.640 20 7,850 t - Hamilton-Magnolia to Newland 30 2,510 g ` - Newland-Hamilton to Atlanta 30 2,570 -Atlanta-Newland to Lake 3-0 2.800 30 7,880 7-13 's 7-7 RESERVOIR HILL The Reservoir Hill system, a closed pressure zone, was analyzed independently of the S - main system. A new booster station to be located at the comer of Goldenwest and Clay will boost from the main zone into this pressure zone. Plate 2 illustrates the proposed service boundary and backbone computer network of the distribution mains identified for this zone. A minimum pipe size of 12-inches and a maximum velocity of 10 feet per second is the assumed overall criteria. Computer runs of this system are included in the . € Technical Appendix. Table 7-10 summarizes the results of the water model computer runs for main sizing due to fire flow requirements. TABLE 7-10 RESERVOIR HILL PRESSURE ZONE AVAILABLE FIRE FLOW • Available Required Fire Flow Fire Flow @ 20psi k Node Location (gpm) (gpm) 1 Ext. of Edwards 3500 8945 5 Clay &Huntington 3500-4000 5046 p 13 Gothard; south of Ellis 3500-6000 6701 15 Ellis &Edwards 1500-2000 6221 k R. g Additional sensitivity runs were performed to illustrate the system operation in the event the Reservoir Hill boosters are inoperable and the back-up source is Overmyer Booster Nos. 1 and 2. The new 100 horsepower motor is assumed to be in operation at Unit No. 1. Table 7-11 identifies the estimated available fire flow at several critical points in the system under these conditions. c r. 7-14 SOy'72 rcE�.7,%^22l:R �S7f�S0lat(C:ii TABLE 7-11 RESERVOIR HILL PRESSURE ZONE BACK-UP SOURCE AT OVERMYER NO'S. 1 & 2 Available Required Fire Flow Fire Flow @ 20psi Node Location (912m) (,gpm) 9 Extension of Clay&Edwards 3000 3334 10 Edwards& Garfield 3500-4000 3114 13 Gothard, south of Ellis 3500-6000 3712 Peak Hour-Ade q uate SY stem Pressures Additional booster capacity at Overmyer booster Nos. 1 and 2 would sufficiently meet minimum required fire flows, except at Node No. 10. Without more specific information on land use, requirements for higher.fireflows cannot be determined. An additional com uter run assumes the Reservoir Hill Booster N p ooste (source Node o. 8) is m operation, however, pipe No. 13 is not included in the pipe network. With this condition modeled, the available fire flow at Node No. 13 was calculated to monitor the effect of the loss of this critical pipe. The available fire flow at Node 13, the most critical location under this condition, is as follows: s� Available Required Fire Flow Fire Flow @ 20psi Node (gnm) (aoml 13 3500-6000 4942 7-8 WATER DIVISION OPERATIONS This section addresses several aspects of the water supply management and operations of the City Water Division. i Water unnly Allocation In order to minimise operating costs, the City Water Division should strive to limit annual groundwater pumping to the Basin Production Percentage (BPP) established by the OCWD. This has historically been 70 percent of total annual production. With increasing demands being placed on the groundwater basin by other agencies, the BPP 7-15 3c:.3/e Erginee:Inq Coraoratlor, could be expected to decrease in the future. Annual demands for various BPP are presented in Table 7-12. With a recent (1986-87) imported water use of about 11,700 AF, and an expected decrease in the BPP, the City would be faced with a growing dependence on imported water,up to an 80 percent increase in the future if the BPP becomes 50 percent. Existing wells have the demonstrated capability of providing in excess of 70 percent of the annual water supply. With proper maintenance of the mechanical equipment, these wells could be expected to last beyond 2000. Periodic water quality testing and well casing inspection will reveal problems with contamination or casing failure. G TABLE 7-12 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY ALLOCATION Annual Water Supply-AF Source Present Projected Total 36,500 42,100 Groundwater (BPP=70% 25,600 29,500 i p Groundwater BPP=60% 21,900 25,300 Groundwater BPP=50% 18,300 21,000 Imported WaterrBBPP-50%) PP=70 0% 10,900 12,600 Imported WaterPP=60% 14,600 16,800 Imported Water 18,200 21,100 4 ' With capacity for Bolsa Chica Service E San Joaquin Reservoir Utilization n San Joaquin Reservoir (SJR) is an open terminal storage facility for MWD's East Orange County Feeder#2. The City has a 13.11 percent ownership in SJR; at its present capacity k of 3,000 AF, this represents 393 AF (128 mg). The State Health Department is suggesting that the reservoir be covered. Recent studies by MWD include the recommended modifications for making the reservoirs a more regular shape, buttressing portions of the embankment and installing a floating cover. Total construction cost for these improvements has been estimated by MWD at $41.8 million. With a projected decrease 7-16 soLite Enaw-eerinq Car.00rat.o^ in capacity to 2,400 AF, the City's proportionate share would be 315 AF (103 mg). The City's share of construction cost would be about 5.4 cents per gallon of reduced capacity. Continued utilization of SJR by the City is cost-effective if upgrading costs are allocated according to actual benefit received. mergency Communications The Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) is the proponent agency for VEPO the Voluntary ryEmergency Preparedness Organization. The purpose of this organization is to provide a communications link between the various water agencies of Orange County under the direction of MWDOC that will.facilitate the optimum use of resources for the purpose of recovering from the effects of a major disaster or emergency. The City of Huntington Beach, as a member agency of MWDOC, is actively participating in activities related to getting the VEPO system on line. Personnel at both MWDOC and the City are confident that the system will be on line by December 1987. MWDOC envisions quarterly radio exercises and annual mock disaster training"in the field." We recommend that the City continue its close working relationship with MWDOC in this area and that it continue its enthusiastic support of MWDOC's emergency preparedness program. We understand that all public works departments use the same radio frequency. During infra-City emergencies, with each department trying to communicate their individual needs, the frequency becomes jammed and is ineffective. The City should investigate the possibility of obtaining other radio frequencies for water operations personnel. merges=Preparedness Plan Guidelines presented here should be followed in times of major disaster when cooperation and assistance are vital to protecting life and property. P The purpose of these guidelines is to encourage a regional response to a major disaster r within the Orange County water community. Follow these guidelines when major disaster occurs and: 7-17 SC; dre ^.^�1Teeri p Corporo.'10:7 1. Water service has been restored in your service area and resources are available to help others. or 2. Additional help is needed to restore water service in your area. a The responsibilities of the Water Department in times of major disaster are: o Protect the health and safety of the pubic. o Assess damage and make repairs within service area to the extent possible. o Report damage assessments to VEPO. Update as needed. o Resume normal operations as soon as possible. o Request help through the VEPO when outside resources are needed. o Make resources available to others when no longer needed in service area. The City should adopt the following guidelines regarding resources: o Outside resources may be requested when needed. o Coordinate with State Office of Emergency Services for use of trailer- mounted pipeline segments. o Equipment, such as backhoes, graders, portable generators, pumps, etc., will be made available to requesting party when not needed within the City. o Supplies,such as valves, couplings,pipe segments, etc.,will be made available to others when not needed. o Personnel may go to the aid of others when not fully engaged in a state of emergency within the City. The requesting parry should fully indemnify and hold harmless the responding P Yfrom any liability resulting from any injury occurring in the course of supplying emergency aid. s The City should establish guidelines regarding water conservation during a major emergency: o Conserve water until normal operations are resumed when such efforts may increase supply to another. 7-18 Bc�te E^�tnea-tn Corporation r 5 o Imported water will be used according to the provisions established by MWDOC. o Groundwater will be distributed according to the provisions established by OCWD. s Earthquake Effects An earthquake could have a major effect on the various components of the water system. In 1971, the San Fernando earthquake (6.6 Richter scale) caused the following damage: i 1. Contamination of wells by damaged sewers. 2. A 78-inch diameter water pipeline was ruptured and out of service for two months. Other large-diameter pipelines were damaged. Distribution piping was shattered. 3. A buried concrete reservoir was severely damaged. These same types of facilities are a part of the City's system, and could expect to sustain some damage from a major earthquake. A structural adequacy investigation should be made of Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs in order to verify earthquake code compliance. � o On October 1, 1987 the Whittier Narrows Earthquake (5.9 Richter scale) caused the following damage to the City of Whittier water system: 1. 25 main breaks. 2. Structural damage to an abandoned reservoir, and a City yard office. 3. Loss of power at the main pumping plant. 'L The City of Whittier has documented the following key lessons learned from that / C experience: 1. Continuation of an active,written disaster recovery program. 2. Maximum 12-hour shifts for work crews. F 3. Prepare for self-sufficiency. V 4. Utitization of portable hand-held radios for reliable communications. 7-19 soL1.e Englneerinq Corporation Security Measures n With today's acts of terrorism and vandalism, all means necessary to protect the water system should be taken. The new telemetry system has the capability of providing an intruder alarm at well and booster station buildings; this feature should be added as soon as possible, together with a system interface with the City Police Department system. Fenced reservoir sites are more difficult to secure; some means should be provided to indicate the presence of unauthorized personnel. Cathodic Protection There are three major steel lines in the stem with v degrees of cathodic J system varying �' protection: 1. 42-inch (installed in 1965-73) - May have originally had sacrificial anodes, but never replaced; recent problem shows possible corrosion. R 2. 36-inch (installed in 1964-65) - Originally had an impressed current system; t the system failed after about 10 years and has since been removed. 3. 30-inch (installed in 1965-73) - Originally had anodes, which have never been replaced. 4. 21-inch (installed 1952-56) -No cathodic protection;possible corrosion. Water division personnel have indicated that some reaches of the above pipelines are in good condition, while others have developed leaks due to corrosion. To prevent A. additional deterioration, we recommend that some form of corrosion protection be provided for these critical pipelines. Since they are more than 20-years old and have experienced areas of corrosion failure, a schedule for replacement of these lines should be established, with the intent of replacing perhaps a half-mile or more per year, t beginning with the most leak-prone reaches. These new lines should also be provided with corrosion protection. A corrosion protection survey should be conducted to determine the cost-effectiveness of a corrosion protection program as opposed to no action. 9 P¢¢ 1 0 7-20 g Soyie Er".^i^eerlrwo Conocra-Vorz � Leak Detection t The City has no ongoing leak detection program. With the relatively high unaccounted for water, some part of this may be attributed to undetected leakage. The City should i identify reaches of likely leakage (prior leak repairs, unexplained surface water) and schedule a focused leak detection survey. In many instances, the value of the lost water more than covers the costs of the survey and pipe repair. 9 Facility Replacement Replacement of water mains and items of mechanical equipment is presently scheduled on an as-needed basis. Projects are identified and replacement costs are included in the City's annual budget. Costs of emergency replacement or repair are covered by reserve ` funds. This approach is designed to respond to replacement of failing facilities, which makes the most efficient use of limited funds. Significant financial outlays are required to upgrade and expand the City water system(as described in Chapter 8). It would be appropriate at this time to also budget for and adopt a formal replacement program, particularly for the older, major facilities such as the original large steel transmission lines. A recent AWAA Journal article, "Replacement Rules for Water Mains,"by T. M. Walski, November 1987, presents a rational approach for determining when water mains should be scheduled for replacement. The analysis considers costs of pipe replacement, valve ' replacement, water leakage, and leak detection. It requires several years of record of pipeline repair frequency and cost disaggregated by pipe diameter. It is recommended `sy that the Water Division begin to keep such records of pipeline maintenance, in order to 2 F eventually develop a particular pipeline replacement strategy. E tl 1 7-21 SOL41a S^q:^aertnq corPor aefcn a 6 CHAPTER 8 SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Based on analysis of existing and ultimate demands on the capacity and operations of the 9 present City water system, several needed improvements have been identified. These improvements have been defined, cost estimates prepared, implementation priorities outlined, and recommendations made. .� 8-1 SUMMARY OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS The following improvements are required for the City water system to be able to meet existing and projected ultimate demands: o Supplemental water supply facilities--Four-renovated or newly constructed wells, and backup propane ane ro supplies for existing wells. PP g o Additional Southeast area booster station facility - 54 cfs capacity to meet existing deficiencies,ultimate capacity of 85 cfs. • o Additional Southeast area storage facilities - 24 MG in Phase I to meet existing deficiencies and 28 MG expansion to meet ultimate demands. o A storage/booster facility in the Sunset Heights area, consisting of a 9 cfs pumping station and a 9 MG reservoir. o Distribution system improvements in the following areas: Huntington Harbour (Peter's Landing), Beach Boulevard, downtown, Sunset Heights, and the southeast area near the proposed booster/storage facilities. o Implementation of the West Orange County Wellfield project. o Other improvements including: structural adequacy investigations, cathodic protection, leak detection, main replacement, security systems, and pumping station dual drives. i 5 Sunnly Well Improvements Supply from four additional wells is required to meet existing and ultimate demands at a reliable level. Assuming treatability studies verify the cost-effectiveness of groundwater y treatment and reactivation of inactive Wells 8 and 11, two additional wells would be drilled. Since treatment costs will be determined in separate studies, costs are assumed herein for four new wells. I Booster Capacity a An additional booster pumping station is required to meet pressure and flow requirements in the southeast portion of the City. Planned capacity to meet existing needs is 54 cfs (24,000 gpm), with ultimate capacity of 85 cfs (38,000 gpm.) Facility construction is assumed to include: six pump/drive sets, architecturally treated building, valving, piping, electrical and telemetry equipment, and standby power and sitework. An additional 9 cfs (4,000 gpm)booster station is planned in the Sunset Heights area. In order r v de to provide a better overall system energy source balance, alternative electric drives could be easily coupled with the gas-engine drives. Electric motors are used widely by water agencies for pump drives. We normally recommend the installation of some natural gas or diesel driven pumps or engine/generator sets to provide a secondary energy source. With the exception of two wells, Huntington Beach relies totally on natural gas engines for their pump drives. We therefore recommend that all existing and new pumping stations be retrofitted or installed with dual drive (gas/electric) systems. Storage QgRaci Supplemental storage capacity is required to meet regulatory, fire and emergency needs. The facility would be located adjacent to the booster station. Initial capacity would be 24 mg, with expansion to an ultimate volume of 52 mg. It is assumed that the reservoir would be a buried reinforced concrete facility, because of aesthetic and space utilization requirements. However, other alternatives such as pre-stressed concrete tanks should be investigated in the preliminary design report to determine the most economical alternative. An additional 9 MG facility is recommended in the Sunset Heights area to spread storage across the system, supply design fire flows to Peter's Landing and eliminate Heights in the Sunset pressures low is area. � P � Pipeline Improvements Distribution pipeline improvements are required in several areas of the City to provide k required fireflow, residual pressures, or for improved reliability. Required replacement pipelines have been delineated in Chapter 7 and are summarized in Table 8-1. e Future consideration could be given to studying the feasibility of sliplining a portion of the abandoned OCWD seawater intake pipeline to Water Factory 21, as a component of the southeast area pipeline improvements,thereby reducing future costs. �ca.e�r'.�:a'seer6�q Cor,^.oratior-. i West Orange CouM Wellfield Should the City be successful in the institutional implementation aspects of this project, facilities required for construction would include: o 3 wells, each rated at 2500 gpm 0 28,000 lineal feet of 18- to 30-inch transmission pipeline o Interconnections with WOCWB Feeder No.2 If the wellfield were developed as an alternative peaking supply, the capacity of both the southeast booster station and reservoir could be reduced by a comparable capacity. Depending on several variables such as the cost of capacity rights in the WOCWB Feeder No. 2, and the extent of OCWD financial participation in the wellfield project, it is possible that cost savings in the southeast booster/reservoir complex would be greater x than the City's cost share of the West Wellfield Project. Other Improvements Improvements in several other areas are required for increased operations and maintenance of the City water systems. These include investigations, design and system construction in the following areas: structural adequacy, cathodic protection, leak detection, main replacement and security. e Bolsa Chica Area Service The City could readily supply water service to the Bolsa Chica area if and when the area I develops. Phase I development would necessitate construction of the recommended. Sunset Heights storage/booster facility. This facility would also adequately serve the proposed Phase II development of Bolsa Chica.. It is assumed that the 16-inch loop pipeline in the extension of Bolsa Chica Street would be constructed a part of the development. R 8-2 COST ESTEMATES Cost estimates for construction of the required facilities are shown on Table 8-1; costs are tbased on an ENR Los Angeles Area CCI of 5500. 8-3 B�:tte�n.,,lrr2erLnq�orpera:la� rTABLE 8-1 SUMMARY COST- MASTER PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Construction jItem Size Cost ($1� . Southeast Complex Facilities 1. Booster Station- Stage I0) 54 CFS 1,900,000 2. Booster Station- Stage IIro) 31 CFS 1,000,000 Subtotal 2,900,000 3. Storage Reservoir-Stage Ida) 24 MG 7,400,000 4. Storage Reservoir-Stage II(b) 28 MG 8,500,000 Subtotal 15,900,000 Sunset Heights Facilities 5. Booster Station 9 CFS 600,000 6. Reservoir 9 MG 3,300,000 Subtotal 3,900,000 Well Improvements 7. Supplemental Well Improvements( ) 3,100,000 Pipeline Improvements 8. Sunset Heights/Peter's Landing Fire Flow 14"/1250 LF 150,000 20"/14000 LF 2,250,000 Subtotal 21400,000 9. Beach Boulevard & Downtown Loop Intertie 811/1730 LF 125,000 12"/1100 LF 125,000 Subtotal 250,000 10. Southeast Complex Facilities 20"/7850 LF 1,250,000 { 30"/7880 LF 1.900.000 Subtotal 3,150,000 10. West Oran�e County Wellfield (C (d) 5,700,000 11. Other improvements 1,200,000 Subtotal Construction Cost 38,500,000 5 Contingencies and technical services -30% 11,500,000 'z TOTAL PROJECT COST 50,000,000 t (a) Existing deficiencies. (b) Ultimate deficiencies. Implementation would reduce costs of booster/storage complex. (d) Includes other feasibility studies, structural adequacy investigations, cathodic protection survey and improvements, leak detection survey, main replacement funds, security system,pumping station dual drives. (e) Includes propane backup supply at existing active wells and proposed wells. x Sc:jle EP?Q1;BBfI!RCo CO;¢Gfat r kr l I- f A 4 3 � IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES r Evaluation has been made of the required master plan facilities, and the relative need for each improvement, in order to develop priorities for implementation, as presented below. Priori Facili 1 Sunset Heights Booster/Reservoir and Pipeline Improvements 2 Southeast Area Complex- Stage I booster station, reservoir and pipeline improvements 3 Pipeline -Beach Boulevard and Downtown loop intertie 4 Supplemental Well Improvements 5 Other improvements 6 West Orange County Wellfield 7 Southeast Area Complex- Stage II booster station, reservoir FINANCING STRATEGY There are various options available to the City for financing the recommended program delineated in this master plan. These options include: o Revenue Bonds o Certificates of Participation o Privitalization o Special Assessment Bonds o Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act o Grants and Loans � R 5 Revenue bonds remain as a conventional financing mechanism for water system improvements. Although, required voter approval may be affected by taxpayer concerns regarding increasing government costs, a $14 -million water revenue bond issue was recently approved in the City of Anaheim. Certificates of Participation (COP) have become popular as a creative means for public agencies of finance major projects. Recent COP financing for water system projects have R-5 scule En--ineerinQ Corporation __J s i been undertaken by the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, and East Contra Costa Irrigation District. Use of COP financing does involve a reduction in agency administration and control over the project. Another recently popular creative financing approach, privatization, partially avoids the problems of rate increases and rate payer resistance; it also involves a reduction of agency control, and is more difficult to implement for multi-project system upgrading programs such as proposed. Special assessment bond financing may be more palatable to the community, but is not $ readily applicable to the projects resulting in general benefit among water customers. Assessment proceedings would also be quite complicated because of numerous property owners within such a large city. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act financing is yet another recent creative approach to public facility financing. Although Mello-Roos proceedings are readily applicable to projects or programs of general benefits, they are better suited to improvements in a� particular zone, such as a redevelopment district,with limited participants. State and Federal grants and loans have been previously used to reduce local costs of water system projects. However, the only active program for funding of projects such as proposed in this report is sponsored by the Farmers Home Administration for municipalities under 25,000 population. The California Safe Drinking Water Act might be used for groundwater treatment projects if user health effects are in question, or an emergency condition exists. California low-interest loans may be available if a leak detection program would lead to pipeline replacement for water conservation purposes. Federal revenue sharing funds through the County Community Block Grant Program have been used for water system improvements in the past; but, program funding has been significantly curtailed. Although alternative creative financing schemes have been recently formulated for infrastructure projects, it is recommended that the City initially pursue a revenue bond issue for funding of the master plan facilities. Since City water bond indebtedness is at a nominal level, and since the Water Division revenues now exceed expenses, it appears that the City's financial condition should not limit the feasibility of such an issue. scule_rpineerimp crraoraticn? o i 1 RECOMMENDATIONS r It is recommended that the City undertake several action items over the next five years in order to continue provision of adequate water service and keep pace with growth and } redevelopment. The recommendations are categorized below according to categories of R facilities, operations and maintenance, and management: Master Plan Facilities 1. Supplement City water supply by reactivating or constructing a total of four additional wells. � 2. Design and construct storage and pumping plant facilities in the Sunset Heights area to increase pressures in the area and supply fire flow to Peter's Landing. 3. Conduct a siting and predesign investigation for the Southeast booster/storage complex. Y 4. Design and construct a new storage reservoir and booster pumping plant in the Southeast portion of the service area to alleviate peak hour demand deficiencies, operational and emergency storage deficiencies. a 5. Design and construct distribution system improvements in several areas to better meet fire flow and peak hour demands. 6. Initiate treatability studies for groundwater supplies. 7. Conduct a feasibility study of the West Orange County Wellfield project. 8. Study the feasibility of a seawater reverse osmosis desalination project for long- term supply augmentation. 9. Determine the feasibility of modifying and incorporating the Orange County Water District seawater intake pipeline to Water Factory 21 as part of the City distribution system. 10. Provide dual drive systems for all existing and new pumping stations. K O,perations and Maintenance 1. Adopt the Boyle computer program model of the City water system as a guide for future operations and system modifications. 2. Investigate the structural adequacy of major system components, especially Peck and Overmyer Reservoirs, and compliance with earthquake codes. s 3. Provide propane facility backup at all active wells and booster pumps served only by natural gas. 4. Conduct a cathodic protection survey and institute a program for major facility protection. �=7 joule EnglneerinQ Corporation 4 5. Conduct a focused leak detection survey of the City distribution system. 6. Institute a formal facilities replacement program for the large transmission mains over the next five years. 7. Continue groundwater quality monitoring of City wells, especially near areas of potential contamination. 8. Conduct a flow test of the San Joaquin Reservoir transmission main during this h winter with only City utilization. 9. Incorporate security Intrusion Detection Systems into major water system facilities, provide interface with existing telemetry system and City Police Department facilities. 10. Expand the ongoing meter repair and replacement program, including the addition of production meter testing. 11. Institute a program to meter water use for construction, including fire hydrant and � P � � g Y service connections. a Management 1. Adopt the Boyle Engineering Master Plan as a formal guide to system upgrading and expansion over the next five years. 2. Adopt the recommended financing strategy and appropriate Water Division budgets to implement the Master Plan recommendations. 3. Initiate discussions with Municipal Water District of Orange County and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California regarding the potential of additional imported water connections for the City. k 4. Initiate discussions with the Orange County Water Department and West Orange 4 County Water Board regarding the potential West Orange County Wellfield Project. 5. Adopt a policy of providing a minimum of one-day emergency storage in the City water system. 6. Participate in San Joaquin Reservoir improvements at a level related to benefits received by the City. E 7. Adopt and implement the Emergency Preparedness Guidelines outlined in s Chapter 7. 8. Determine additional Master Plan improvements required to serve the Bolsa Chica area, and relate to specific cost of service for that area. 4 r 6 8� Bogle�rq!^eerenq=orpo��tors k R Y 1 i 9. Strive to limit annual groundwater pumping rates to the Basin Production Percentage established by Orange County Water District, unless the benefits of ' additional pumping exceed the economic advantages. 3 10. Continue to monitor the progress of Phase I of the Orange County Water District Green Acres Project, and evaluate the potential for City participation in Phase H. a P x f 1 t Y G • Y 4 7 F t e s 5 R a - 8-9 tea:aE�=r.�1 �er7r a mar: ati;.a� . � .r TH°E rr i r _,1 OF Ha,INTI'N'GTO�N B}EAC�=I�: