Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/20/2000, 2 - WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN UPDATE council July 20 2000 j ; ac,Enaa RepoRt 2-CITYY OF SAN LUI S O B I S P O FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director o"" Prepared By: Gary Henderson, Water Di ion Manager Ron Munds,Utilities Conservation Coordinator', SUBJECT: WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN UPDATE CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider a report regarding the update of the City's Water Shortage Contingency Plan and provide input to the various components of the plan. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The purpose of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is to reduce water use during periods of projected water shortages or supply interruptions. State law requires that the plan be updated every five years with the next update due at the end of the year 2000. The law also dictates what is to be included in the plan and requires the following components: 1. Water Consumption Reduction Methodology 2. Penalties 3. Prohibitions 4. Revenue and Expenditure Impacts 5. Reduction Measuring Mechanism 6. Preparation for Catastrophic Water Supply Interruption The City's current WSCP was developed and implemented in 1989 and was in effect until 1992. For the most part, staff is recommending that the current program's components remain the same with only minor modifications. The most significant recommended modifications take place in the Water Consumption Reduction Methodology section where staff is recommending revisions to the action levels and the methodology of allocating water to residential customers, and the Revenue and Expenditure Impacts section. Other suggestions include exploring the option to move to monthly billing in order to provide timely water related materials and water use information to our customers. Staff reviewed the proposals in this report with the Chamber of Commerce and the Residents for Quality Neighborhoods. Each group provided input into the program and were receptive to the changes suggested in this report. The following report provides a detailed discussion of the various components of the WSCP, including the input from the community. 2-1 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 2 DISCUSSION Background The purpose of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) is to reduce water use during periods of projected water shortages or supply interruptions. The City's first WSCP was developed .in response to the water supply emergency experienced as a result of the drought which began in 1986. The current plan was implemented in April 1989 and was in effect until March 1992. In 1991, in accordance with the requirements of Assembly Bill I IX which required water agencies to develop water shortage plans, the City compiled its existing mandatory water rationing and water conservation plans into one document and submitted the compilation to the State. The WSCP is now a required component of the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) which is required to be updated and submitted to the State every five years. The next update is due to the State at the end of the year 2000. In order to facilitate the update of such a large complex document, it was determined that the WSCP section should be presented separately to Council for consideration. Current and Proposed Changes to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan State law requires the following components be included in the WSCP: I. Water Consumption Reduction Methodology 2. Penalties 3. Prohibitions 4. Revenue and Expenditure Impacts 5. Reduction Measuring Mechanism 6. Preparation for Catastrophic Water Supply Interruption The current WSCP evolved considerably during the water emergency period between 1989 and 1992. The changes made to the plan during that period were intended to make the water allocation methodology (i.e. how much water each customer could use without penalties) more equitable for all customer classifications, reflect reasonable assumptions for entering or exiting a specific level of conservation and minimize the impacts to the community. For the most part, staff is recommending that the current program's components remain the same with only minor modifications. The most significant recommended modifications come in the Water Consumption 'Reduction Methodology section where staff is recommending revisions to the action levels and the methodology of allocating water to residential customers, and the Revenue and Expenditure Impacts section. The following is a brief summary of each of the current program's components, and the recommended modification to the existing plan. 2-2 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 3 Water Consumption Reduction Methodology When developing a program to allocate water during a water shortage period, there are many factors that must be taken into account before determining the final plan for allocating water. These factors include determining the priorities for water use during a water shortage emergency, when to implement mandatory conservation measures and the methodology of allocating to the various customer classifications. This section discusses these factors and the suggested method to allocate water. Priority by Water Use. Current Priority by Use In order to develop a methodology to allocate water during a water shortage emergency, it is important to establish the priorities by water use. The current plan uses the following ranking system: 1. Minimum Health and safety allocations for interior needs including single family, multi- family, hospitals and convalescent facilities, retirement and mobile home communities, student housing, and fire fighting and public safety (not including landscape uses). 2. Commercial, industrial, institutional/government operations (where water is used for manufacturing and for minimum health and safety allocations for employees and visitors), to maintain jobs and economic base of the community(not for landscape uses). 3. Existing landscape. 4. New customers, i.e., proposed projects without permits when shortage declared. The emphasis of all the stages of water rationing is to retain enough water for essential indoor needs and limit the amount for non-essential and landscape water uses during the different stages of the water shortage emergency. Based on the water use priorities, the reduction goal for each customer classification during water rationing are then established. A larger reduction goal would be expected from a customer classification that has more discretionary water use like landscape irrigation. This will be discussed in more detail in the Proposed Action Levels section. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current priority by use guidelines. Action Levels Current Action Levels The water shortage contingency plan currently has three mandatory water conservation action levels. The"trigger points" for different levels of mandatory conservation were based on projections of how long the city's water resources would last taking into account storage in the reservoirs, water demand projections, rainfall and evaporation estimates and other related factors. The current plan has three stages and specific trigger points for implementation as shown below: 2-3 Council Agenda Report(Nater Shortage Contingency Plan Page 4 Stage I 15% 3 years Stage II 35% 2 years Stage III 50% 1 year During the drought of 1986 to 1992, the City analyzed current water supplies (typically in April), and projected how long the supplies would last based on the previously mentioned assumptions. If an action level would be reached within the next 9 months, then that action level would be implemented in May. This was done to maximize the water savings since the majority of discretionary water use is for landscape irrigation and the peak water use for landscaping is during the summer months. At the time that these action levels were established, the City's water use was significantly higher on a per capita use basis than it is now. In fact, per capita use(which includes commercial, park irrigation, etc.)was as high as 182 gallons per person per day(gppd); currently, city water use is approximately 130 gppd (about 30% lower). The percent reductions in each stage were based on the higher water use rates and would not be achievable on a community wide basis today based on the current use of 130 gppd. Therefore, the water conservation goals identified above will need to be modified based on the fact that residents are now utilizing water more efficiently than in the past. Proposed Action Levels The trigger points for initiating mandatory conservation still appear to be a valid approach for the City (i.e. 3, 2, or 1 year of supply). Staff has developed a computer model to project how long water supplies would last using various assumptions. The model takes into account the total storage in the lakes and groundwater resources in meeting the City's water demand. The model also uses historical hydrologic information(rainfall, evaporation, etc.) which is based on the average for the worst four years of the 1987-91 drought period. The model will be updated annually as part of the Water Resources Status Report to project water supply availability. The question now becomes: when the model estimates that the City has limited water supplies, what action levels are achievable and appropriate during a prolonged dry period where mandatory conservation measures are necessary? Staff utilized the model to analyze the implementation and timing of various conservation scenarios to determine how and if these actions would be effective in extending the supplies of the City. The goal of the conservation restrictions should be to at . ,least gain another winter rainfall period in hopes to add to reservoir storage totals. The model confirmed that mandatory conservation measures can extend available resources an additional year and would be an effective water management tool. During the height of the last drought, city-wide per capita water use reached a low of 86 gppd in 1990. This low water use had a significant impact on the community which is still visually evident today. In developing recommended conservation levels, staff assumed that a figure of 85 gppd is likely the lowest level that the community could reasonably achieve. Based on this low water use rate, staff developed three new action levels for the plan as shown below: 2-4 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 5 r E ss Stage I 115 gppd 3 years Stage II 100 gppd 2 years Stage III 85 gppd 1 year Based on the current per capita water use of 130 gppd, the three action levels would represent percent reductions of 101/6, 25%, and 35%. Since percent reductions are based on a comparison of the amount of water used at a certain point in time, staff recommends the target per capita use rates above be adopted as the mandatory conservation goals or stages. Staff would then return annually with the Water Resources Status Report to update the computer model,.projections of available supplies and make any recommendation regarding the implementation of an action level, including specific conservation program components needed to attain the desired conservation goal. The model will reflect changes in the assumptions used based on actual water use, population projections, etc. These changes may impact when conservation measures are recommended to be implemented based on the desire to extend available resources and will be thoroughly discussed with the Council each year. Suggested direction: Staff proposes using the target per capita use rates of 115 gallons person per day (gppd), 100 gppd and 85 gppd as the mandatory conservation goals or stages. Single Family Residential Current Single Family The current program has an equity issue relating to single family customers which revolved around the methodology of determiimgwater allocations based on a percent reduction from a base year (1987 was used during water rationing). This methodology penalized households that were conserving prior to the mandatory program. Consequently, households that were using large quantities of water in 1987 received large water allocations during water rationing. It should be noted that lot size in some cases and subsequent irrigation needs contributed to the higher water use. In an effort to devise a more equitable program, a lifeline allowance was established which meant that if you had a low water allocation you would not be penalized for usimgwater up to the lifeline amount. a A ceiling allocation was instituted so that large residential water users would not be given exorbitant water allocations. Customers which did not have a water use history to base the percent reduction on were given what was termed the "City average". The City average was based on the average amount of water a three person household would use(based on water billing information) minus the percent reduction goal for the particular program (15%, 35%, etc.). If there was more than three people in the household, additional water was allocated per individual with appropriate documentation of residency. 2-5 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 6 Proposed Single Family As discussed previously, the percent reduction from a base year methodology created inequities within the single family customer classifications. Staff proposes to resolve this issue by doing away with the percent reduction methodology and giving each single family account the same base allocation for a household of three. If there are more than three people in the household, additional water would be allocated dependent on verification of the actual household size. Council could consider in the first stage of rationing granting an added allocation if the customer has a large lot and additional landscape irrigation needs. The amount of the initial allocation will be based on the reduction goal of the required program. Suggested direction: Staff proposes using a water allocation methodology based on three person household with additional water allocated for larger households. Multi-Family Residential Current Multi-Family Initially, multi-family units were allotted water using the percent reduction from the base year method with no lifeline allowance per dwelling unit. This was later changed so that a property owner could opt for the lifeline allocation per unit (which was lower than the single family lifeline) if the result was a higher allocation than the percent reduction method. These alternatives seemed to work well for multi-family property owners. There were some complaints that the landlord could not control how tenants used water therefore should not be responsible for the penalties associated with excess use. Proposed Multi-Family As with single family customers, staff recommends that the percent reduction methodology be eliminated and an allocation per dwelling unit based on a three person household be established. Though statistically there are slightly fewer people per household in multi-family dwellings when compared to single family residences, for ease of understanding and administration staff is recommending the three person household for both customer classifications. If there are more than three people in the household, additional water would be allocated dependent on verification of the actual household size. Suggested direction: Staff proposes using a water allocation methodology based on three person household with additional water allocated for larger households. Commercial a Current Commercial The commercial sector was initially allocated water using the percent reduction from the base year method. An alternative method was developed when it became apparent that some of the same problems with the single family residential allocation method were evident. A commercial baseline standard methodology was developed. This methodology used a water use factor times a quantifying factor such as square feet of office space or number of seats in a restaurant to arrive at a water allocation. The commercial customers had their choice of which method to use when 2-6 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 7 determining their water allocation. As previously mentioned, input from the commercial sector indicated that they were generally satisfied with water allocation methods available to them Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current commercial program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a specific base year methodology. Additionally, staff would propose that a new business would be allocated water based on the baseline standard methodology. Institutional Current Institutional Institutional customers such as schools were allocated water using strictly the percent reduction from the base year method. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current institutional program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a specific base year methodology. Landscape Current Landscape Meters which were for irrigation only were allocated water using strictly the percent reduction from the base year method. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current landscape program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a specific base year methodology. Penalties To encourage compliance by water customers to their assigned water allocation during water rationing, a surcharge was added to the water bill if the customer exceeded the required reduction amount. The surcharge was a 100 percent(or doubling) of the total water portion of the bill if the customer exceeded their target allocation and 200 percent (or tripling) of the bill if the water use exceeded the base year usage. Additionally, the City reserved the right to place a flow restrictor or terminate water service if customers exceeded their allocation multiple times within a year. Though punitive, this system of penalties was very effective in significantly lowering water use citywide. Staff recommends conceptually retaining the current system of penalties with a modification to account for the recommended change of using a three year average to determine the base year for commercial, institutional and landscape customers and establishing a base year allocation for residential customers. 2-7 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 8 Alternative 1. Direct staff to develop a penalty structure with less financial impacts to the customer such as a 50% and 100%for exceeding the established levels. Advantage: There would be less of economic impact to water customers receiving penalties. Disadvantage: May not be as effective in reducing water demand during a water supply emergency. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current system of penalties but direct staff to modify the system to correspond to the recommended water allocation methodology for each customer classification. This would include modifying the base year calculation(200% surcharge level)to reflect a three year average versus a specific year for commercial, institutional and irrigation customers, and developing the base year criteria for single and multi-family customers. Additionally, staff would propose that Council direct staff to evaluate the costs associated with the necessary computer programming for the utility billing system to implement these suggestions. Adjustments to Water Allocations There were provisions in the program to increase water allocations based on specific criteria. The criteria were as follows: 1. Medical- A physicians letter indicating the purpose of the additional water use and estimated amount needed was required. 2. Increase in the number of permanent residents- Documentation was required to verify the increase in household size. 3. Incorrect base year- Customers were allowed to use any six consecutive billing cycles from 1987 to the time mandatory rationing was implemented as a new base year. 4. Redistribution of water allocation- Customers could move a portion of their unused water allocation from one billing cycle to another in order to alleviate a surcharge one time per year. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current system to adjust water allocations with the exception of eliminating the adjustment for incorrect base year (number 3) for residential customers. Appeals If customers were not satisfied with a decision made at the staff level regarding adjustments to their water allocations or penalties, they could appeal to the Water Conservation Adjustment Board. The board was made up of staff from the Finance, Utilities and Community Development 2-O Council Agenda Report Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 9 Departments. If the customer was not satisfied with the decision made at the board level, they could appeal to the CAO or his designee whose decision was final. Recommendation: Staff proposes retaining the current appeals process. Prohibitions Current Prohibitions In 1987 and 1989, the City adopted water waste ordinances that prohibited specific activities deemed to waste water. When mandatory water rationing ended it was determined to leave these codes in force. The following is the list of the prohibited activities: 1. Use of substandard water fixtures. 2. Water runoff from property. 3. Use of water from fire hydrants for other than firefighting. 4. Serving water in restaurants unless requested. 5. Washing sidewalks, driveway and parking areas with potable water. 6. Using potable water for construction. Suggested direction: Staff proposes retaining the current prohibitions and continue to have them enforced on an ongoing basis. Revenue and Expenditure Impacts During periods of mandatory water conservations measures, the revenues from water sales will be reduced but the operations and maintenance costs will not reduce significantly. In fact, during the previous drought, the operating and capital budgets increased due to groundwater exploration and other actions taken by the city during the crisis. The reduction in revenues resulting from decreased water use could result in the need to raise water rates during these periods. To minimise the need to raise rates during mandatory conservation, staff recommends establishing a minimum working capital policy that would cover revenue losses during the first two years of a mandatory conservation program without the need to raise rates. The final year would likely require a water rate increase. If the City is in a third year of mandatory conservation, an increase. in the per unit cost of water could encourage additional reduction in overall water use. The current City policy for minimum working capital is 20% of the operating budget. It is estimated that approximately $2.5 million in revenue losses would result from the first two years of mandatory conservation (Stage 1 and 2). It could be argued that during a time such as this, a portion of the working capital reserve could be available to cover reduced revenues. Staff recommends that Council give conceptual approval to increasing the water fund working capital to also provide for rate stability during mandatory conservation periods. Staff will then return during the annual water rate analysis with recommendations to address the fiscal impacts and rate implications of implementing this policy. 2-9 Council Agenda Report-Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 10 Alternatives Institute a base charge: During the previous mandatory water conservation period, the City's water rates had a fixed charge based on the water meter size in addition to commodity charges. With a fixed charge, the impacts to revenues resulting from water reductions are not as severe. The city now has a strictly commodity-based rate structure with two tiers. This type of rate structure results in more pronounced impacts to revenues resulting from water use reductions. The two-tier commodity based rate structure was established in 1993 after an extensive review of options to encourage efficient water use and improve customer service due to difficulties in explaining the rationale behind the minimum charge. If a customer uses very little water there is a noticeable decrease in their water bill. While a fixed fee could provide a more stable revenue source, it would likely not meet the water conservation goals that the city has established. This alternative is not recommended. Defer Capital Improvement Projects: During a period of mandatory conservation measures, the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the water fund could be drastically reduced. While this may seem like a good idea on the surface, past experience has actually shown that the CIP budgets were increased in an effort to increase or stretch our available water resources. Also, deferral of CIP for a number of years could prove detrimental to the established goals for system upgrades and maintenance. This option is not recommended. General Fund Subsidies: The General Fund could subsidize some or all Water Fund costs during this period. This was briefly considered by the Council during the last period of mandatory water conservation. However, given the established City's policy on enterprise fund cost of recovery and the impact on the General Fund, this was not implemented then, and is not recommended as a viable alternative now. Increase Water Rates: The city could adjust water rates annually during water shortages and mandatory conservation. This could lead to rates being increased in one year and then reduced later on once mandatory conservation has ended and water demand returns to previous levels. This could result in rates going up and down more often and increase impacts to customers resulting in more complaints. This also results in rates going up at a time we are asking our customers to reduce water use, which can create a negative image for the City. While this option would tend to increase the incentive to reduce water use, it is not recommended. Suggested direction: Direct staff to return to Council with a detailed cost analysis for establishing a rate stability reserve above the 20% fund balance now required. Customer Information/Monthly Billing Currently, the City bills for water and sewer service on a bi-monthly basis. There are several problems with using this non-standard billing cycle even during regular water use periods. The _ problems include: 2-10 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 11 1. The appearance of bills being high when compared to a bill from other utilities which bills monthly. 2. Water use information not being provided in a timely manner if the customer is experiencing a leak or other water use related problem. 3. From the City's perspective, it would reduce cash flow and customer payment delinquency problems_ These problems are especially pronounced during mandatory water conservation. Providing timely information to our water customers during a water emergency is critical in gaining public acceptance of the goals the City is attempting to achieve during mandatory water conservation. Monthly billing would be a means of providing customers with up to date information. The additional benefit would be alerting customers of leaks in a more timely manner. Currently, a leak which occurs at the beginning of a billing cycle can waste a significant amount of water if it goes undetected until the meter is read at the end of the cycle. Monthly billing would reduce this potential water waste considerably. Suggested direction: Staff would recommend that Council direct staff to analyze converting to a more standard monthly billing cycle, with a special emphasis on implementing monthly billing during a declared water supply emergency. Citizen Input In 1992, in anticipation of updating the WSCP in the future, staff developed and mailed 5,000 surveys to residential water customers soliciting their opinions on how the mandatory water rationing program worked for them. More than 1,300 surveys were returned which gave the program high marks but equity regarding how water allocations were determined for single family residential customers was a prevalent issue with most respondents. Additionally during 1999, staff met with the Chamber of Commerce and Residents for Quality Neighborhoods (RQN) for additional input. The business community seemed pleased with the way the commercial sector was handled during water rationing and did not recommend any changes from the past program. Members of RQN on the other hand brought up the equity issue which was discussed in the Water Allocation Methodology section. Summary of Suggested Actions The following is a recap of the suggested directions made in this report: 1. Retain the current priority by use guidelines. 2. Use the target per capita use rates 115 gallons person per day(gppd), 100 gppd and 85 gppd as the mandatory conservation goals or stages. 2-11 Council Agenda Report—Water Shortage Contingency Plan Page 12 3. Use a water allocation methodology for all residential customers based on three person household with additional water allocated for larger households. 4. Retain the current commercial program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a 1987 base year methodology. 5. Retain the current institutional program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a 1987 base year methodology. 6. Retain the current landscape program, with the exception of using an average of the previous three years as the basis for the water allocation instead of the percent reduction from a 1987 base year methodology. 7. Retain the current system of penalties but direct staff to modify the system to correspond to the recommended water allocation methodology for each customer classification. This would include modifying the base year calculation (200% surcharge level) to reflect a three year average versus a specific year and developing base year criteria for residential customers. Additionally, direct staff to research the cost implications of implementing the proposed program. 8. Retain the current system to adjust water allocations with the exception of eliminating the adjustment for incorrect base year(number 3)for residential customers. 9. Retain the current appeals process. 10. Retain the current prohibitions and continue to have them enforced on a ongoing basis. 11. Return to Council with a fiscal analysis of establishing a minimum working capital levels above the current minimum for rate stability purposes. 12. Direct staff to analyze the costs to implement monthly billing during a declared water emergency. CONCURRENCES The Finance Department concurs with suggested directions made in this report. FISCAL IMPACT There are no fiscal impacts associated with this report at this time. 2-12