Transcript Water Study Session PowerPoint

2010 Water Supply Plan,
Water Rate and Connection Charge Study
City Council
Study Session
September 8, 2010
Agenda
1.
Purpose of Meeting
2.
Water Supply Situation
3.
Impact on City
4.
Demand Forecast
5.
Conservation Plan for New Development
6.
Off-site Conservation Funded by New Conservation Offset
Charge
7.
Other Strategies to Satisfy Demand
8.
Comparison of Strategies
9.
Meeting Demand at Buildout
2
Agenda (cont.)
10. Needed Capital Improvements
11. Allocation of Costs to New Development
12. Water Connection Charges and Comparisons
13. Billing System and Rate Structure
14. Financial Models and Key Assumptions
15. Financing Alternatives and Comparison
16. Recommended Financing Alternative (Alt. 4)
17. Impact on SF Customer and Comparisons
18. Water Shortage (Drought) Surcharge
19. Recommendations
3
Purpose of Meeting
 Provide update on water supply situation and
water supply projects
 Provide brief update on water demands,
demand projections and water conservation
 Presentation of 2010 Water Supply Plan and
Water Rate and Connection Charge Study
prepared by John Olaf Nelson
 Obtain input from the Council and the general
public
4
Water Supply: Importance of
Local Groundwater Supply
 Constitutes 5 to 15% of City’s water supply
picture
 Conjunctive use strategy
 Drought contingency supply
 Emergency supply
5
Local Groundwater Planning
STEPS
PERFORMED
WELL DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS
0
5 YEARS
2 YEARS
6 MONTHS
“Desktop”
Yield, Quality and
Interference Analysis
Determine Need for
New Well Location
Screening Potential
Well Site
·
·
·
Tested Well #7 for Detailed
Design.
Well #7 was not brought
into service due to low yield
& treatment required.
Evaluated KT Carter Park
site.
1 YEAR
CEQA
·
·
Evaluated entire City well
system.
Completed City-wide well siting
evaluation.
·
6 MONTHS
1 YEAR
Bid Process Well
Installation
Well Head Treatment &
Facilities
Bid Phase
Pilot Hole
Preliminary Design
Construction
Phase
Well Installation & Testing
Full Design
Next Step – site-specific
evaluation prior to drilling.
6
Fault & 2008-2009 Groundwater
Contour Reference Map
7
Geologic Map
8
Cross Section
9
Well Study Area
10
Potential New Well Siting Map
11
Other Sonoma Valley Groundwater
Projects
Active in the Groundwater Management
Plan Meetings
SC Water Agency Groundwater Banking
Feasibility Study
SC Water Agency Stormwater Capture
and Recharge Project
City of Sonoma Well #7 monitoring for
groundwater depression
12
Water Supply Situation
 Biological Opinion (BO) Impacts
 Limits access to Warm Springs storage (Lake Sonoma)
 Increases cost of Russian River (RR) water
 Lake Mendocino Storage Issues
 Increased demands
 Reduced diversions from Eel River
 Inadequate storage for Fall fish runs in some years
13
Water Supply Situation (cont.)
 SCWA’s response:
 Abandon The Water Project
 Calls for reduction of RR diversions from June September in some years
 Fix BO limitations with In-stream improvements
 Build Dry Creek Bypass, if needed
 Focus on conservation, recycled reuse and groundwater
alternatives
 Action Plan based on limiting RR diversions to 75,000 afa
and renegotiation of Restructured Agreement
 City’s response:
 Demand management through water conservation
 Increased reliance on local groundwater
 2008 Water Supply Action Plan
14
Impact on City
 Peak month delivery capacity limited to 3.46 mgd vs. 6.3 mgd
Entitlement1
 Annual delivery limit of 2,617 af vs. 3,000 af Entitlement1
 Potential BO and Lake Mendocino storage issues resulting in
reductions in Aqueduct deliveries of up to 25% during June September in some years
 Increased cost of water purchased from SCWA2
 City must look to its own resources to meet increased
demands of growth envisioned in General Plan
Notes:
1. Cal. Year 2009 Demand (a depressed demand year):
Pk Mo 2.73 mgd
Annual - 2065 af
2. 11% per yr average for past 4 years
Caution: 3.46 mgd capacity could be reduced.
15
Demand Forecast
Remaining New Development1
Type
Dwelling Units
ESD’s
% of Demand
SF
386
346
31%
MF
1,006
557
50%
COM
na
203
19%
Total2
1,392
1,106
100%
Notes:
1. Based on City’s 2020 General Plan.
2. Buildout estimated to occur in year 2031.
16
Demand Forecast (cont.)
Projected Demand Including Remaining New Development
Demand
Existing (Normal Year)1
New Development2
Projected New Gross
Annual
(afa)
Peak Month
(mgd)
2,583
3.41
492
0.53
3,075 (19%)
3.94
Notes:
1. Determined by regression model of historic data.
2. Includes 8% for Unaccounted-for Water (UFW). Deducting UFW leaves
balance of 456 af.
17
Conservation Plan for New
Development
Conservation Programs
Savings
(afa)
% of New
Demand
Cost
On-site Savings at Buildout:
Plumbing Code
51
11%
74
16%
Subtotal, on-site savings
125
27%
$1.6 M
Off-site savings1
103
23%
$2.1 M
Total, on and off-site savings
228
50%2
NDS - General
45.3
NDS - Submetering MF
13.8
NDS - Commercial
14.9
Subtotal NDS
Notes:
1. Paid for by new Conservation Offset Charge.
2. Predicted increase in demand of 456 af is cut in half.
18
Conservation Plan (cont.)
Program
Savings
(afa)
Benefit/Cost
Ratio
Off-site Programs for Consideration (Savings achieved by Buildout):
Smart controller program
29.7
4.0
Double clothes washer rebate
7.5
1.5
Sub-metering MF
4.3
1.2
Cash-for-grass
14.4
1.1
Hot water on-demand
4.9
0.9
Cost
Total, off-site programs listed
61
$1.5 M
Added Tier 1 and Tier 2
42
$0.6 M
Total savings, off-site programs1
103
$2.1 M
1. Funded by proposed Conservation Offset Charge
19
Conservation Plan (cont.)
Other Strategies Considered to Satisfy Demand
Program
Savings
Cost
0.57 mgd;
165 afa
$655,000
?
?
0.61 mgd;
180 afa
$3.4 M
106 afa
$3.3 M ?1
Graywater, clothes washer only
gravity system2
11,545 g/yr/SF
$649/ SF site
Rainwater harvesting (barrels)2
3,362 g/yr/SF
$488/ SF site
Sonoma Development Center
and VOM - CU Proj.
Groundwater Banking - CU Proj.
New/increased Local Wells
Recycled Water
Notes:
1. Cost incomplete. Does not include rehab/modification of storage or pump
station. Does not include connection from ST Plant to Watmaugh Rd.
2. Participation and persistence of use unknown. Pilot programs recommended.
20
Comparison of Strategies - Unit Cost
Figure 25 - PV Comparison of Various Strategies
$1,800
Capital
$1,600
$ p e r a c re - ft
$1,400
O&M
479
$1,200
104
579
$1,000
98
212
$800
$600
1,206
1,037
$400
985
771
735
$200
$0
Recycled Water
(106 af)
Conjunctive Use
Project (165 af)
NDS (74 af)
Off-site
Conservation
Offsets (103 af)
New Wells (180 af)
21
Comparison of Strategies - Capital
Cost
$/af of Potential Available Yield or
Figure 26 - Total PV Capital Cost per afa of Available Yield
$30,000
30,734
$25,000
$20,000
21,772
20,680
18,889
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
3,970
$0
Recycled Water
(106 af)
Conjunctive Use
Project (165 af)
NDS (74 af)
Off-site
Conservation
Offsets (103 af)
New Wells (180
af)
22
Comparison of Strategies
Comparison of Various Strategies - Unit Cost over 30 years
Strategy
Amount
(af)
Capital
($)
O&M
($)
Total
($/af)
Recycled Water
106
1,206
479
1,685
Conjunctive Use Project
165
735
579
1,314
74
1,037
104
1,141
Off-site Conservation Offsets
103
985
98
1,083
New Wells
180
771
212
983
NDS
Discount Rate = 3.0%
23
Comparison of Mixes of Strategies
Comparison of Mixes1
Program Mix
Capital Cost
($, PV)
New wells+NDS+Cons Offsets+CU
8,856,336
New wells+NDS+Cons Offsets+CU+RW
12,126,446
The Water Project2
33,455,427
Cost/af
($/af)
1,080 <==
1,223
1,525
NDS = New Development Standards
CU = SDC and VOM Conjunctive Use Proj.
RW = Recycled Water Proj.
Notes:
1. All three alternatives include cost of watershed restoration (in-stream
improvement projects) and Dry Creek Bypass.
2. Updated cost of project is $518.9 M (including instream
improvement
projects and Bypass. $33,4 M is Sonoma’s estimated share.
24
Meeting Demand at Buildout –
Normal Year
Annual
afa
%
Existing Demand
Remaining New Gross Demand
Total Gross Demand at BO
Peak Month
mgd
%
2,583
3.41
492
0.53
3,075
3.94
Reductions (Cons. and RW)
Conservation in New Development
Conservation off-site offsets
Remaining Tier 1 savings – future
RW offsets
125
103
54
106
32%
27%
14%
__27%
0.11
0.09
0.05
_0.09
32%
27%
14%
__27%
Total Cons. savings & RW offsets
389
100%
0.35
100%
Net Potable Demand w RW
2,687
3.59
Net Potable Demand w/o RW
2,793
3.69
25
Meeting Demand at Buildout –
Normal Year (cont.)
Annual
afa
%
Peak Month
mgd
%
Supply Available (excl. RW)
SCWA aqueduct
Existing wells
Planned new wells
Total Available
Cushion in a Normal Year
Additional Supply on Standby/reserve
Conjunctive Use Project
Surplus Available to Meet
Drought and Weather Variations
2,617
250
__180
3,047
254
94%
9%
__6%
109%
9%
165
419
3.46
0.85
_0.61
4.92
1.23
94%
23%
-17%
133%
33%
0.57
15%
1.80
49%
26
Meeting Demand at Buildout – Dry
Years
Comparison of Various Water Year Conditions
Water Supply Condition
Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)
in af and as
Percent of demand
Existing (2009)
Buildout (2031)
Normal Year – excl. BO impact1
Normal Year – incl. BO impact
+284 / +11%
-37 / -1%
+419 / +15%
+99 / +4%
Single Dry Year – excl. BO impact
Single Dry Year – incl. BO impact
+284 / +11%
-37 / -1%
+245 / +9%
-54 / -2%
Multiple Dry Years – excl. BO impact
Multiple Dry Years – incl. BO impact
+284 / +11%
-37 / -1%
+419 / +15%
+99 / 4%
Extreme case2 – excl. BO impact
Extreme case – incl. BO impact
-81 / -3%
-401 / -14%
-149 / -5%
-448 / -14%
Notes:
1. BO impact could be addressed as early as 2016 or as late as 2030.
2. Extreme case assumes hot dry year coincides with worst supply limitation.
27
Meeting Demand at Buildout Conclusions
 Without BO limitations, strategy mix provides
surplus in Normal, Single Dry and Multiple Dry
Years
 With BO limitations, minor deficits of 1 to 2%,
except for Extreme Case condition where deficit of
3 to 14% result
 With resolution of Dry Creek flow problem, deficits
drop to 3 to 5%
 During Extreme Case conditions, well production
will be increased to maximum capacity. Also an
additional 85 af might be available from the SDC
CU Project.
28
Annual Water Demand Forecast
Figure 28 Historic and Projected Annual Demand, af
4,000
y = 37.042x + 1574.1
3,500
3,000
Estimated Buildout under the
Growth Management Ord. (65
DUs/yr) will occur by 2031.
2,000
1,500
Note:
1. Linear trend line represents normal weather years
w/o calls for conservation/rationing. Based on
historic record, annual demand can deviate 14%
above trend line.
2. Forecast includes UFW of 8%.
3. Rebound from rationed and managed demand
years (2997 - 2009) to 2014 is estimated and shown.
1,000
500
Historic Production
Forecast w Conservation
Forecast w/o Future Conservation
Avail. from Aq + Eist. Wells + New Wells
Avail. from Aq. and Exist Wells
Water Sales
Linear (Historic Production)
2035
2033
2031
2029
2027
2025
2023
2021
2019
2017
2015
2013
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
0
1981
a fa
2,500
29
Capital Improvement Plan Summary
Project Type
Cost
Water mains
$ 1.2 M
Service line replacements
$ 3.2 M
Tanks, pumps, wells
$12.9 M
Post 2019 projects
$ 3.4 M
Total
$20.7 M
30
Calculation of New Capacity Charge
and Conservation Offset Charge
Charge
Cost, PV
%
$8,354,147
$1,050,789
$9,404,936
994
89%
11%
100%
Capacity Charge:
Future Water System Improvements
SCWA Watershed Restore/Dry Creek Bypass
Total
Remaining ESDs to Buildout
Unit Capacity Charge ($/ESD)
$9,460
Conservation Offset Charge:
Off-site offsets funded by New Development
Unit Conservation Offset Charge ($/ESD)
$2,138,989
$2,200
31
Recommended Connection Charges
Item
Existing Proposed
% Increase
Meter Charge – Standard 1-inch Service, $ (1)
$511
$423
-17%
Capacity Charge, $/ESD (2)
$8,000
$9,460
+18%
New Conservation Offset Charge, $/ESD (3)
$0
$2,200
New Charge
Front-Ft Charge, $/ft (4)
$49
$56
+14%
Authorize adjustment of all charges annually as function of ENR SF Bay Area
Construction Cost Index (average of past three years recommended) (5)
Notes:
1. Charges for other size services per Table 59. Decrease due to Staff experience with
AMR meters and pricing.
2. 75% of the increase is explained by increased cost of construction.
Had The Water Project gone forward, the proposed charge would be $12,289 (up
54%).
3. Note that the sum of the proposed Capacity Charge and New Conservation Offset
Charge is $11,660 or a combined increase of 46% (8 percentage points less than the
Capacity Charge had The Water Project gone forward).
4. Increase due to application of ENR Index. No change recommended in 100 ft
minimum.
5. Financial model assumes charges will be adjusted annually. Six of eight Water
Contractors now adjust connection charge annually.
32
SF Rate Structure Design
Limits,
Accounts
tgal *
Impacted
1
0 – 12
47%
2
12 – 36
40%
3
> 36
14%
* tgal = thousands of gallons
Block
Rate Multiplier
1.00
1.70 x Block 1
1.25 x Block 2
Water
Volume
49%
35%
16%
Revenue
35%
42%
23%
Table S6
33
Financial Models
T w o Int eract ive Mode ls:
·
·
W ater Rate M ode l
Cap ita l Spend ing M ode l
A ll o w tr ia l of d iffe rent rate in creases and b orr ow ing to det erm ine the best m ix
that w ill m eet reven ue requ irem ents w h ile av oi d ing subs idy of ne w deve lop m e nt.
Key para m eters and cr iteria :
·
·
·
·
·
Adequate reserve ba lances
Avo id subs idy of ne w custo m ers by e xist ing custo m er s
Rat io of net ope rat ing revenu e to d ept serv ice > 1.25
Avo idance of r ate -shock
Sens ib le bund li ng of de bt if ne eded
34
Financial Models - Key Assumptions
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Annual well use – 100 afa
Capital cost escalator (ENR CCI performance) – 3.41%
Inflation of O&M expense (CPI performance) – 2.52%
Increase in salaries and benefits – 2.5% (City Finance Director)
Annual account growth – 1%
Increase in SCWA water rates – 10%/yr through FYE 2012 and 9%/yr
Portion of SCWA water rates allocable to future customers – 9.1%
Earnings on reserve funds – 3% (City Finance Director)
Term of new debt – 20 years
Average annual interest cost of new COPs – 4.75% (market)
Cost of COP issuance – 3% (market)
Minimum Operating Fund Reserve – 4 months O&M expense
Minimum debt service coverage ration – 1.25
35
Alternative Financing Plans
F ive bas ic a lternat ives ana lyzed :
A ll assu m e the e xist in g; a lr eady a pprov ed inc reases of 5% ea ch for
Febr uary 1, 2011 and 2 012 go into ef fect as p lanned.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
No Ne w Rate Inc reases and No Ne w De bt
M in im u m Ra te Inc reases w ith N o Ne w Debt
M in im u m Ra te Inc reases and Ne w Deb t
Reasonab le Ra te Inc reases and Debt (Reco m m ende d)
L im it Ne w Ra te Inc reases to fou r p lus Re asonab le Debt
36
Comparison of Financing Plans
Item
Alt. 1
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4 (Rec.)
Alt. 5
2013 – 2017 Rate Increases, % (1)
0
6+6+7+8+7.1 4+5+5+5+5
5+5+5+5+5 6.1+6.1+6.1+6.5
New Debt Issue – 2011, $
0
0
1,976,698
2.008,628
2.008,628
New Debt Issue or Loan – 2015, $
0
0
1,550,907
1,935,443
1,935,443
Total New Debt, $
0
0
3,527,605
3,944,071
3,944,071
New Annual Debt Service, $ (2)
0
0
263,980
295,145
295,145
Capacity Fund Balance, $ (3)
-1,451,647
-1,451,647
299,846
577,834
577,834
Surplus Oper. Reserve, $ (3, 4)
-5,224,788
2,618,331
172,820
544,212
1,209,360
Debt Service Coverage > 1.25 (5)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cumulative Increase, % (6)
8 / -14
50 / 28
37 / 15
38 / 16
37 / 15
Notes:
(1) Does not include already approved 5% increases for Feb. 1, 2011 and 2012.
(2) Assumes terms of 20 years and interest of 4.75%
(3) At close of FYE 2019
(4) Amount in excess of Minimum Target Operating Reserve of 4 months of operating expense.
(5) Water Enterprise’s existing debt service also requires the 1.25 coverage factor.
(6) Values are percentages calculated on FY basis (FYE 2012 => FYE 2019. First value is not corrected for
inflation. Second is corrected for inflation of 2.5% per year. includes the impact of the two already authorized
increases.
Table S7
37
Recommended Financing Plan (Alt. 4)
$8,000,000
Note on how to read this chart:
Vertical bars show breakdown of Revenues.
Cummlative area plots show a breakdown of Expenses.
Solid black line is resulting total reserves (operating + capital).
$7,000,000
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
$4,000,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,000
$1,000,000
$0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Purchase Water Cost
Labor and Benefits
Other Operating Expense
Inter City Transfers
Debt Service
Direct Capital Outlay
Billed Revenue (bar)
Non-rate Revenue (bar)
Interest Earned (bar)
Capacity Charge Income (bar)
Total Annual Reserves
2019
38
Recommended Rates
A.
C ust om er s Ins id e Cit y Li mi t s:
Increases
>>
Feb . 1 s t o f:
2010
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
$ /m e ter per b im ont h ly b illi n g p eriod
Current
Alread y Approved
Propose d Add itio n al Increases
Fix e d Bim ont h ly S er v ic e Cha r g e A p p lic a bl e t o A ll C ust o me r Cat e go r ie s L ocat e d In s id e C ity L im its:
5 /8" me ter
1"
me ter
1 .5" m e ter
2"
m e ter
3"
m e ter
4"
m e ter
5"
m e ter
6"
m e ter
Hydra n t
27.84
33.42
44.58
55.72
83.57
139.28
102.61
223.05
27.86
29.23
35.09
46.81
58.51
87.75
146.25
107.7 4
234.20
29.25
30.69
36.84
49.15
61.43
92.14
153.56
113.13
245.91
30.72
32.22
38.69
51.61
64.51
96.74
161.24
118.79
258.20
32.25
33.83
40.62
54.1 9
67.73
101.58
169.30
124.72
271.11
33.87
35.53
42.65
56.90
71.12
106.66
177.76
130.96
284.67
35.56
37.30
44.78
59.75
74.67
111.99
186.65
137.51
298.90
37.34
39.17
47.02
62.73
78.41
117.59
195.98
144.38
313.85
39.20
Va r ia b le 3 -B loc k (tier ) C omm o d it y Rate s A p p lic a bl e to S F C ust om ers L o cate d In s id e Cit y Lim its:
Block
Block 1
Block 2
Block 3
$ /tga l pe r Block d esign a te d pe r b imo n thly bil lin g perio d
3.26
5.54
6.92
3.42
5.82
7.27
3.59
6.11
7.63
3.77
6.42
8.02
3.96
6.74
8.42
4.16
7.07
8.84
4.37
7.43
9.28
4.58
7.80
9.74
Va r ia b le C omm o d ity R ates Ap pl ica b le t o Oth e r C u s to m er C ate g ori e s Locat ed Ins ide Cit y Li mits:
MF
COM
IRR
M UN
Hydra n t
4.16
4.63
6.11
4.45
6.11
4.37
4.86
6.41
4.68
6.41
4.59
5.10
6.73
4.91
6.73
4.82
5.36
7.07
5.16
7.07
5.06
5.63
7.42
5.41
7.42
5.31
5.91
7.79
5.68
7.79
5.57
6.20
8.18
5.97
8.18
5.85
6.51
8.59
6.27
8.59
Table S8
39
Impact of Rates on SF Customer
Ra te In crease
S tatus
C o mm o d ity
Ra te
E ff ec tiv e
F eb .1s t
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
%
In cr.
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Ann ua l, $
419.71
440.70
462.73
48 5.87
510.16
535.67
562.46
590.58
590.58
590.58
B im o n th ly C h g
(1)
U nit
C h g.,
Ann ua l
$
(x 6)
27.84
167.02
29.23
175.37
30.69
184.13
32.22
193.34
33.83
203.01
35.53
213.16
37.30
223.82
39.17
235.01
39.17
235.01
39.17
235.01
T ot al
Ann ua l
B ill
586.73
616.06
646.87
679.21
713.17
748.83
786.27
825.59
825.59
825.59
Ann ua l
B ill
In fl atio n
A d jus ted
(2)
Curre n t Ra tes
A lread y A ppr ov ed
616.06
A lread y A ppr ov ed
630.70
Pr o p o sed In crease
644.12
Pr o p o sed In crease
655.89
Pr o p o sed In crease
665.68
Pr o p o sed In crease
673.06
Pr o p o sed In crease
677.58
Pr o p o sed In crease
669.46
Pr o p o sed In crease
694.22
N ot es:
T y p ica l Cus to m er = Med ian Cus to m er . Ann ua l u se = 103,21 6 ga ll o n s.
1. Based o n 5/8 -in ch m eter ser v ice
2. Based o n 2.5 % infl atio n fac tor app li ed to o pera tin g ex pe n se item s in fi n an cial m o de l
stud ies an d ca lcu lated o n a fi sca l y ear b as is. F Y E 2011 take n as t h e base y ear.
Table S9
40
Comparison of Current Rates
700
Variable Commodity Charge
Fixed Bimonthly Charge
A nnual B ill for M edian U s e S F C us tom er, $
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Marin
Municipal WD
City of
Rohnert Park
City of
Sonoma
City of Santa
Rosa
Valley of the
Moon WD
North Marin
WD
City of
Petaluma
City of Cotati
Town of
Windsor
Fig S4
41
Drought Surcharge
Assumptions and Recommended Criteria:
·
·
·
·
·
Surcharge based on conditions at the time.
Surcharge would only be used in case of formal declaration of a water shortage.
Customers would be notified when the surcharge would take effect and the date it.
would be removed or the criteria by which removal would be determined.
The Conjunctive Use Project with SDC and VOM is in place and ready to implement.
Extraordinary costs:
Increased Expense:
· Increased Cost of Enhanced and Extra Conservation Programs
· Increased Staff Labor to Manage Shortage and Implement Programs
· Cost of Operating SDC/VOM Conjunctive Use Project
Appropriate Surcharge (based on 2010 costs): $0.58/tgal
Revenue: $397,000 if in place 12 months.
Increase in SF customer bill: $78/yr
42
Recommendations - Water Supply
Plan
Implement ”New Wells + Conservation + Conjunctive Use” mix of
strategies. Specifically, it is recommended:
1. The City adopt and implement the NDS set forth in Table 29.
2. In addition to its existing water conservation programs, implement the
new/modified off-site conservation programs described in Part I, Section
4.4.2.
3. Pursue implementation of the Conjunctive Use Project with VOM, SDC
and SCWA as described in Section 4.5.1.
4. Continue planned new groundwater development and rehabilitation of
wells.
5. Continue to participate in studies of recycled water use, but hold
participation in project construction in abeyance until assurances on
water costs and subsidies sufficient to make the project competitive with
other alternatives are available (refer to Part I, Section 4.7.3 for specific
description of subsidies needed).
6. Implement pilot conservation programs recommended for graywater
reuse and rainwater harvesting as set forth in Part I, Sections 4.8.6 and
4.9.7.
7. Make changes to the City’s Water Action Plan as shown in Table F-1 of
Appendix F.
43
Recommendations - Connection
Charges
1. Approve revised Capacity Charge of $9,460/ESD as soon
so as possible.
2. Approve new Conservation Offset Charge of $2,200/ESD as
soon as possible with receipts to be spent on conservation
programs whose goal is to reduce the footprint of new
development demand to 50%.
3. Approve reducing Meter Charges as shown in Table 59.
4. Approve increasing Front Foot Charge to $56/ft.
5. Approve adjusting all connection charges annually using
average change in ENR SF Bay Area CCI for the past 3years.
44
Recommendations - Rates
1. Pursue Alternative 4 – Reasonable Rate Increases and
Debt.
2. Approve five added new annual rate increases of 5%
effective February 1 of 2013 through and including 2017
and the schedule shown in Table S8.
3. Approve steps necessary for the City to issue debt for water
system improvements and related expenses in the amount
of $2,000,000 as soon as practicable (2011).
4. Commence investigation of acquiring loans, grants or
issuing additional debt of $1,940,000 in 2015.
5. Consider adopting Water Shortage Surcharge methodology
described in Table 68.
45
Future Items for Discussion &
Consideration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Request Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District to calculate
residential charge as a function of inside water use and bill directly or
provide an appropriate credit or refund to SF customers who install
conservation appliances or systems that reduce sewage.
Mandate retrofit of water conserving plumbing fixtures upon resale.
Consider adding water conservation point threshold to Green Building
Ordinance (see Part I, Section 4.1.2.1).
Implement “Pay as You Save” type program (City pays the full cost of
purchasing and installing devices, which are paid back by the occupant
over time via bill adjustments as the savings occur.) If the property
changes hands, the water devices remain with the property and the
new occupant pays the charge on the water bill.
Mandate submetering of apartment buildings upon sale and remodel.
Provide free leak survey and free flapper replacement.
Upgrade Water Department billing and data software.
Increase block rates to place a greater premium on summertime water
use.
46
Questions
47