Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02/04/1992, 3 - STUDY SESSION TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE WATER HARDWARE RETROFITTING PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES
,1111111111[ 10oll��U City of San �IS OBISpo MEETING DATE: February 4, 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT NUMBER: FROM: William T. Hetland, Utilities Director PREPARED BY:Ron Munds, Water Conservation Coordinator Sue Baasch, Administrative Analyst SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO CONSIDER COMPREHENSIVE WATER HARDWARE RETROFITTING PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES CAO RECOMMENDATION Receive a report regarding alternatives for retrofitting the City with water efficient plumbing hardware and provide staff with direction as to the structure of a city-wide hardware retrofit plan and ordinance. REPORT-IN-BRIEF At the April 16, 1991 City Council meeting,. Council indicated that water use efficiency in the City was a primary objective to ensure the long term water supply. In order to obtain this efficiency, water hardware retrofitting in existing buildings and structures will be necessary. Staff has analyzed alternative options to retrofit existing inefficient plumbing fixtures with water. efficient hardware to be considered by Council. The options range from a mandatory requirement with no monetary assistance to a voluntary program with a cash incentive. The goal of all the proposed programs is to replace the estimated 27,500 toilets that are not 1.6 gallons per flush, and RETROFIT PROGRAM GOALS to replace all the remaining showerheads and faucet aerators with low flow models. The estimated water _W_ Replace est . 27,500 toilets with 1.6 gal ULF savings from this progra;n is 1,080 acre feet per year. -► Replace est. 12,600 showerheads &aerators to Presently, the City has two (2) low flow programs which encourage retrofitting, -► Decreased WW flows to yield energy cost savings the Water Offset (Retrofit) Program and the Toilet Rebate Program Council has allocated $200,000.00 to -0- Achieve 1,080 AFY from water savings at costs the Toilet Rebate Program. To date, comparable to other SLO City Sources of Supply this program has used approximately $140,00.00 of the allocated funds. Figure. 1 RETROFIT PROGRAM GOALS Also, as of January 1989, the City requires Ultra-Low Flush toilets and water saving hardware in all new construction. city of sin tL.,s OBIspo MIN is COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 2 Numerous water agencies throughout the state have water saving hardware retrofit policies and programs (see Exhibit B). The most common of these are toilet rebates programs and retrofitting upon sale of property. Doubts concerning performance have been raised, but empirical evidence indicates that ULF toilets work as well or better than higher gallonage models. Staff has explored the possibility ' of using toilet retrofit devices to achieve greater water efficiency in existing fixtures but has determined that there are several drawbacks associated with these products. The greatest challenge for staff was to determine the funding mechanism to support a large scale retrofit program. Staff has estimated the cost of the various plans and has identified administrative costs and actual hardware costs. From this information, funding alternatives have been developed. Program costs range from 20 thousand dollars to 4.7 million dollars. Assuming the drought continues and building permits are only available through the offset process, the principal significant impact of a mandatory plan will be the end of all new construction within a three to five year-period. A secondary impact will be the need for utility billing system changes in the Finance Department to accommodate the specified billing procedure outlined in this report. DISCUSSION BACKGROUND At the April 16, 1991 City Council meeting, the Council relaxed the reduction requirements for the mandatory water conservation program from 35% to 15%. Recognizing that the current drought was not necessarily over and that there will be future droughts, Council indicated water use efficiency in the City was a primary objective to ensure our long term water supply. In order to obtain this efficiency, water hardware retrofitting in existing buildings and structures will be necessary. It is estimated that toilets consume 28% and showers consume 21% of the total inside Household Water Use water use of a home. Presently, conclusive data is see.iw. not available regarding toilet water consumptionin commercial buildings. The following information will provide Council with background on existing Ultra-Low-Flush (ULF) toilet policies and programs, as... and toilet related performance studies. ,ox Gigs Existing Ultra-Low-Flush Toilet Programst and Polices Effective on January 1, 1989, all new construction in the City requires the installation of water efficient hardware including ULF toilets (1.6 gallons per Figure 2 HOUSEHOLD WATER USE city of San , ,S osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 3 flush), low-flow showerheads (2.75 gallons per minute), and faucet aerators (2.75 gallons per minute). As a moratorium on building permits is required under mandatory water conservation, developers began utilizing the offset provision of the Water-Element in the General Plan, which allowed projects to receive building permits when water allocations were not available. The offset can be achieved by replacing plumbing fixtures in existing buildings with low-flow hardware or by installing water recycling equipment. A developer is required to offset twice the amount of water the proposed project will use on an annual basis. At the June 6, 1990 City Council meeting, the Council initiated Phase I of the Toilet Rebate Program by authorizing $100,000.00 in funds for Ultra-Low-Flush (ULF) toilets installed after June 1, 1990. An $80.00 per toilet rebate was approved with the stipulation that each water customer be limited to no more than three (3) toilets per account. The rationale behind this decision was that the City wanted to assist single family customers with retrofitting. Large water consumers, such as apartments and motels, were retrofitted by developers participating in the Water Offset (Retrofit) Program for development credits. About the same time the rebate program was implemented, the building industry was slowing down in new construction, thus retrofitting by developers was next to nothing. Staff received numerous complaints from apartment owners who said assistance was inadequate from the City's rebate program because of the limitation on the number of toilets that qualified for the rebate. Except for this criticism, Phase I was considered extremely successful with funds being utilized within about four months. At the November 20, 1990 City council meeting, Phase II of the Toilet Rebate Program was approved with additional funding of $100,000 being authorized. The rebate amount was lowered to $70.00 per toilet with the same guidelines as in Phase L Council did stipulate that mobile home owners could participate even though they were not individually metered and did not hold a water account. As of November 1, 1991, only 45% of the allocated funds have been utilized. Staff feels the lack of participation is due, in part, to the amount of money being offered. The average cost of a toilet and installation is approximately $160.00 which leaves the customer with a sizeable capital outlay. Other Agencies ULF Toilet Related Programs and Policies The following is a summary of various agencies ULF toilet programs and policies. This information is a representation of existing programs and policies in effect throughout the state. (See summary as Exhibit B.) Marin Municipal Water District Retrofitting (ULF toilets Low-flow showerheads, and faucet aerators) required at the time of change in ownership, remodeling that increases floor space by 25% or more, or if a new bathroom is constructed. 3-3 city of San lL.,S OBISpo Mmum COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 4 ULF toilets required in new service, increased service connection, or change in character. Monterey Peninsula Water Management District. Retrofitting (ULF toilets,etc.) required at the time of change in ownership, remodeling that increases floor space by 25% or more. Existing commercial, industrial, and public authority must meet new construction standards for shower heads and aerators. Also, any of these toilets that use more than 3.4 gallon per flush must reduce the volume by at least one (1) gallon. City of Santa Monica ULF toilets required in all new construction and certain remodeling situations. Aggressive rebate program offering $100 per toilet replaced. Goleta Water District Appeals for increase in a target water allocation will not be considered unless the business or residence is completely retrofitted. A continuing toilet rebate program is in its fourth year. Rebates have varied depending on revenue, and have been as high as $100 per toilet. City of Los Angeles ULF toilets are required in all new construction. In existing buildings and structures, 3.5 gallon per flush or less is required. Documentation of compliance must be verified by the City. Grover City Has in effect an ordinance requiring existing structures or buildings to be retrofitted with ULF toilets by March 1995. The City pays the full cost of retrofitting including flooring changes. The City supplies the toilet (one brand is offered) and have a pool of plumbing contractors to perform the installations. RellabTity Concerns An ultra low-flow (ULF) toilet is defined as toilet that uses 1.6 gallons per flush or less. The primary concern regarding ULF toilets relates to the possibility that since a decreased volume of water is used per flush, they are not as effective in carrying solid waste down the household sewer lines. It is alleged, therefore, that the use of ULF fixtures over time will cause the accumulation of sewage solids and eventually lead to plumbing stoppage. This conjecture may sound plausible, but it is not supported by empirical evidence which now exists on ULF toilet performance. When 3-5 gallon per flush toilets were required state-wide in 1980, toilet manufacturers simply reduced the amount of water released without redesigning the bowl. 3- ���w�� �IIIIIfIf IpnI city Of san 'L_.,s OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT .etrofit Program Alternatives Page 5 Because of this, problems with solid waste disposal occurred. It should be noted that the 1.6 gallon ULF toilet is a entirely re-engineered design. The discharge pipe, water seal depth, bowl shape, flush valves, and tank shape have been redesigned for maximum efficiency (Attachment A). These changes contribute to a new generation of toilets which,are highly water efficient, meet or exceed all American National Standards Institute's (ANSI).standards, and are considered excellent performers. The performance standards and an explanation of the tests performed are explained in Attachment B. A secondary concern is that a ULF toilet requires a larger percentage of double flushing to remove the solid waste from the bowl as compared to other toilets thus not achieving the proclaimed water savings. Again, empirical evidence demonstrates that this is not correct. A study performed by Marin Municipal Water District found that only 2% of the time double flushing was required. This compared with the control group of conventional toilets which double flushed nearly 5% of the time. These results are consistent with other similar studies and show that ULF toilets have a better over-all rating than conventional toilets (Marin Municipal Water District, Oct. 1990). As for customer satisfaction, a survey was conducted by the water conservation staff of customers who participated in the City's Toilet Rebate Program. The average rating, or grade, given by all respondents was 90% for performance and satisfaction. This data is consistent with he information obtained from Marin Municipal Water District and East Bay Municipal Utility District ULF toilet studies. Altemative Toilet Retrofd Devices There are numerous toilet water displacement and retrofit devices available on the market today. Though many are effective to varying degrees, there are several drawbacks associated with the over-all concept. Staff feels these devices are a "band-aid" approach to potential water savings. The estimated life span can vary between two to five years depending on the product selected. This compares to the minimum twenty-five year life expectancy of a ULF toilet. Another concern is with the adjustability of retrofit devices. There is no guaranteed water savings if a person is able to adjust or even remove the device with relative ease. This becomes a problem when trying to estimate long term savings and project water supplies for the future needs. Finally, most retrofit devices are only marginally successful because most higher gallonage toilets are not engineered to flush adequately with a lesser amount of water. RETROFIT PROGRAM The Goal 1. To replace the estimated 27,500 toilets that are not 1.6 gallon per flush toilets or less, and; �5 city Of San OBISPO =1011ams COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 6 2. Install low-flow showerheads, 2.5 gallons per minute, and faucet aerators, 2.5 gallons per minute, in all residential dwellings and commercial establishments that have not already been retrofitted. Estimated Water Savings Potential Staff feels it is important for the Council to understand that there is no set formula for documenting exact water savings associated with this type of program. Staff has calculated water savings potential using several methods, all of which have resulted in similar conclusions. For the purposes of this report, staff has used the 1984 Housing and Urban Development "Survey of Water Fixture Use" study, a University of Arizona toilet performance study, and information from the Rocky Mountain Institute, to calculate potential water savings. Assumptions and Considerations 1. Cal Poly water usage is not included. 2. Commuter (working) and transient (tourists) population water usage and potential water savings are not included in the estimated water savings. . 3. Council determines that complete retrofit of the city is necessary. Toilet Retrofitting It is estimated by the Community Development Department that there are 32,000 toilets in the City, of which approximately 4,500 toilets have been retrofitted to ULF toilets through the Toilet Rebate Program and the Water Offset (retrofit) Program. This equates to approximately 14% of all toilets in the City. The Federal Housing and Urban Development 1984 Residential Plumbing Use WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL Study determined that a person flushes the ULF TOILETS toilet on an average four (4) times a day at home. A Rocky Mountain Institute study indicates that another two (2) to four (4) Avg J7uAWdaylperson 6 flushes occur at work, school, and other recreational activities. For our purposes six ULF Savings per flush 3.75 gal (6) flushes per day will be used to do the water. savings calculations. This figure is Per pawn annual�ovings 0.025 AFY consistent with the most recent data available. Total SLO Population 42,000 When an existing toilet is replaced with a ULF toilet, an average of 3.75 gallons per Total Annual Savings 1,050 AFY flush is saved resulting in a savings of 22.5 gallons per person, per day. Assuming this Less 1496 savings occurs 365 days a year, the annual retrofitted 903 AFY savings is approximately 0.025 acre-feet per Figure 3 ULF Tops 3-( ����N�►�N►�IIIIII�Ip �11 city of San i S OBISpo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 7 person, per year. Multiplying 0.025 by the total population (42,000) will equal the total water savings in acre feet. 0.025 X 42,000= 1,050 acre feet Assuming that 14% of the population are already using ULF toilets (from toilet rebates and Water Offset Program), subtracting 14% from the potential water savings gives us a conservative estimation for water savings of 903 acre feet per year resulting from toilet replacement. Showerheads and Faucet Aerators Staff estimates that there are 25,200 showerheads in the City. The assumption will WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL also be made that there is the same amount of bathroom faucets to calculate potential LOW FLOW SHOWERHEADS water savings when retrofitted. Based on a survey conducted by the East Bay Municipal No.of Showerheads Utility District (EBMUD), 50% of the homes in City of SLO 25,247 contacted in an area that had been heavily exposed to conservation programs had Less No. Previously retrofitted with low-flow showerheads. Staff Retrofitted 12,623 feels it is safe to assume these results would No.to be Retrofitted 12,623 apply to the City because of our aggressive Low Flow Showerheads water conservation program. Est of Svgs/Day 12.2 gal/day Water use for showerheads depends on the Annual Savings t 72 AFY actual flow rate, the length of the shower, and the frequency of showers. The HUD Figure 4 LOW FLOW SHOWERHEADS "Survey of Water Fixture Use" collected data on actual showerhead flow rates and shower use habits from eight groups of single family households in various states. Based on this research it was determined that a 12.2 gallon per day per showerhead water savings was achieved when replacing a non-conserving showerhead with a low-flow model. Of the estimated 25,247 showerheads in the City, approximately 7,820 Low-flow showerheads have already been installed through the Water Offset Program and the CARE. Program in 1988. Using the assumption that 50% of all showerheads have been replaced because of the Mandatory Water Conservation Program, an additional 4,803 have been replaced voluntarily. This equates to a total of 12,623 showerheads needing to be replaced. Applying the above assumption of a water savings of 12.2 gallons of water per day per showerhead, this equates to approximately 172 acre feet of water savings per year. 3- ��u�����ii��lllllll�lh �►��II city of San Luis OBISPO Nii% COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 8 Using the same HUD study, it has been determined that 39 gallons of water is saved WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL per day per faucet that is retrofitted. Assuming there are approximately 12,623. LOW FLOW AERATORS faucets (same as the number of showerheads), this equates to 5.5 acre feet of water savings No.of Aerators per year. in City of SLO 25,247 Less No.Previously Staff does not have an accurate estimate on Retrofitted 12,623 the number of low-flow showerheads or No.to be Retrofitted 12,623 faucet aerators already installed in the City. The estimation used in this analysis is based Low Flow Aerators on the total estimated number of Est of Svgs/Day .39 gaUday showerheads and aerators minus the number Annual Savings 5.5 AFY of showerheads and aerators installed in new construction, minus the number installed by the participants in the Offset Program, Figure 5 LOW FLOW AERATORS looldng at a survey conducted by EBMUD, and minus the number of showerheads and aerators given free of char a to the city residents through the CARE Program. WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL Since showerheads and aerators are relatively 1200 low in cost, it is safe to speculate the above assumptions and 1000 estimations will yield a reliable estimation on 800- potential water savings. m s+owtis AFT. Summary of Water Q 7oT t;0805AFj! Savings Potential �p It is important to note that these figures are 200 only valid under normal water-use conditions. During water rationing, relative water savings from retrofitting will be significantly less. Also, UtF Toilet LF Showerheads ® Lf faucets not factored into the water savings potential is Figs 6 SUMMARY OF WATER SAVINGS POTENTIAL the amount of water that 3-8 ����► ►�►IIIII'�p� ► p city Of San L_.,S OBISPO iSmall COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 9 will be saved due to leak reduction when replacing an old toilet. Several studies indicate between 5 to 10 percent water savings can be achieved. ALTERNATIVE PLANS Staff feels retrofitting of existing water using hardware will have a significant impact on decreasing the long term per capita water consumption in the City and recommends the adoption of a city-wide program to retrofit existing inefficient plumbing fixtures with water efficient hardware. If Council selects a mandatory water hardware retrofit program, the advantage is assured compliance over a set period of time to produce the desired water savings and secondary benefits of reduced wastewater flows. The disadvantage is the financial burden to the water customer to retrofit (this may be offset by reduced commodity charges due to water savings). A voluntary program, similar to the one currently in place, has the advantage of allowing water customers to choose to retrofit at a time best for them; however, the disadvantage is assurance that the program goals will ever be 100% met. There are financial options, such as rebates, which could make a mandatory program less of a financial burden or add attractive incentives to a purely voluntary program. The pool of money to fund a rebate program would be created by either a general water rate increase or a water efficiency surcharge, an added fee placed on the water bill for a determined time period. Regulatory components such as required retrofit upon resale could be added to either a mandatory or voluntary program. A minimal "disincentive" charge could be placed on water customer bills who have not retrofitted. COMPONENTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RETROFIT PROGRAM Mandatory Compliance Voluntary_Com liD ance Financial Incentive Financial Incentive Rebate to retrofit Rebate to retrofit Purchasing Incentives Purchasing Incentives Coordinate bulk purchasing and contractor Coordinate bulk purchasing and retrofit installations on a City-wide basis. rates on a City-wide basis Time to comply (i.e., from 2 to 8 years) 3 - 'llltjh 111100 U city of San t_ 3 OBISPO we COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 10 Mandatory Compliance (cont.) Voluntary Compliance (cont.) Regulatory Elements Regulatory Elements ■ Retrofit upon Sale, Remodel or change ■ Retrofit upon sale, Remodel, change in u e in use ■ Retrofit prior to allocation increase ■ Surcharge credits for retrofitting ■ Mandatory compliance ordinance ■ "Disincentive" Charge ■ "Disincentive" Charge Financial Impact Financial Impact ■ Cost of financing program to include ■ Cost of financing program to include costs costs of financial incentives, of financial incentives (if any), implementatin implementation and management costs. and management costs. ■ Charge could be in form of water ■ Charge could be in form of water rate rate increase or "water efficiency increase or "water efficiency surcharge". surcharge". Mandatory Retrofit Program If Council chooses to implement a mandatory program, each of the five components discussed below should be considered in .structuring a final program. As well, it should be noted that a mandatory program would eliminate the opportunity for developers to obtain a water allocation through the Water Offset program, as retrofitting opportunities decrease.. Assuming the drought continues and building permits are only available through the offset process, it is estimated that this will essentially end all new construction within a three to five year period. A Mandatory Program would require a system of verification. Verification of customer compliance would be performed by the Water Conservation staff who would schedule and perform the inspections and log the account data to add to the database of retrofitted addresses. It is estimated that if the City is not in a mandatory conservation mode and the current level of Water Conservation staffing is reduced to one full-time person, a minimum of three (3) full time employees would need to be retained to administer the program. If a full rebate program is elected, an additional one (1) may be required in the Finance Department to process the reimbursement logs and issue the payments to customers. Financial lncen&e The monetary incentives and options depend on the extent the City wishes to compensate the water account holders for retrofitting, full reimbursement versus partial reimbursement A full rebate program would provide $175/toilet, showerhead and faucet aerator. The rebate prograr could be less than a full rebate, in the amount of $70 per toilet currently offered. A $0 rebate program could have a significant economic impact on lower income water customers' ability to ���h��i�►►�Illllf�li►��U City Of San 'L___,S OBISpO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 11 comply. The higher the rebate, the higher the cost to the water customers through some type of rate increase. After consulting with a group of local plumbing contractors, plumbing contractors from outside the area, and analyzing the data obtained from the City's rebate program, it has been determined that a reasonable cost for installation and materials for one (1) toilet is approximately $160.00. Adding the cost of installing a showerhead and faucet aerator, the total cost per bathroom would be approximately $175.00. The general consensus among the contractors was that there was little cost difference per bathroom installation in a single family residence. In larger complexes, like apartment buildings, there would be an economy of scale with labor costs being slightly lower. I Purchasing Incentives The City could work with private suppliers and plumbing contractors to develop a program of reduced costs due to mass purchasing and assured work levels. The City could purchase the necessary hardware and develop a pool of plumbing contractors who have agreed to install the ULF toilets at a predetermined price. This approach has been used by some cities, but abandoned in most cases because of the administrative complexities and other related problems. Such a program would require at least one additional staff person (three plus one for a total of four Water Conservation staff persons). The City would be in direct competition with the private sector by eliminating the need for retail toilet suppliers, and limiting the number of plumbing contractors able to perform the installations. Since the City would be the supplier of ttie toilets, the City would be responsible for the warranty of the toilets and would have liability exposure. Storage would be difficult, as a warehouse to hold all the toilets would have to be found and other problems, such as inventorying and scheduling would be very complicated. The cost of this hardware purchase (projected at $3,525,000) would be borne by the water customers through some type of rate increase. Compliance Time Period In establishing a time period, it is important to remember that the City's water customers have attained and continue to conserve at high levels. The water savings projected in this report are based on normal levels of water consumption, and it could take several years to realize the level of water savings previously identified. The compliance period directly relates to the, financial assistance decision. For instance, if Council elects a high degree of monetary assistance, a five year program will equate to a larger bimonthly water bill because of the need to generate a large cash flow in a short amount of time to fund the program. If Council decides to extend the time period, the water bill will reflect this extension of time to generate the same amount of revenue. If Council elects a lesser degree of assistance or none at all, the time period will influence the cost impact on the water customers. 3-� ��� i ►►uIIIIIIIIIJ�►��u�q�8�il city of San S OBISPO i COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 12 Regulatory Mechanisms The first step in establishing a mandatory program would be to pass an ordinance requiring water efficient hardware in existing buildings and structures. Within that framework, other regulations could be incorporated, such as retrofitting at the time of sale of a property, retrofitting when remodel, and/or retrofitting when there is a change in use of a building. A financial disincentive (a minimum bimonthly charge) could be applied to water accounts who have not complied by a certain date. Once compliance was verified, the financial disincentive charge would be removed from the account. Financial Impact The exact financial impact of a mandatory program will depend on the components selected. For the purposes of this analysis, a five year mandatory program with full rebate for water hardware has been selected as it is represents the most costly of the alternatives to be considered. The full cost of the program, including funding for a full rebate program and funding to cover staffing and program costs, is projected at $525 million. (This does not include the possible impact to the Finance Department). A rate increase equivalent to 1817o or an additional $10.96/bimonthly for five years for a single family household using 25 billing units would be necessary to fund this program Exhibit A compares this cost with other City water supply programs. Exhibit B compares the monthly costs with other retrofit options. i If a program is selected that offers no rebate, a 307o increase, or an increase of $1.68/bimonthly for a single family household using 25 billing units would be required. It is important to note that the rate equivalencies shown in Exhibit B are merely for comparison purposes. A certain level of Water Conservation staffing and funding is approved in the current budget that could be used to support any retrofit program Exhibit B assumes there is no continued authorization for those programs as the drought and mandatory conservation are assumed to end. The "rate equivalencies" are expressed in that manner because the charges could be made part of the water rate structure, or they could be a "water efficiency surcharge". The advantage of a "water efficiency surcharge" is that is identifiable for this program and can be removed at the end of the program. Also, it would be possible that a surcharge could be assessed in a different method than the rate structure, i.e., based on meter size and commodity use. It might be more reasonable to assess the "water efficiency surcharge" relative to number of average toilets in a planning designation such as residential, commercial or institutional- Voluntary Retrofit Program A voluntary retrofit program should consider four components: financial incentives, purchasing incentives, regulatory mechanisms, financial impact. As with the mandatory program, a certain level of staffing and programmatic costs are . associated with a voluntary program. It is ii�Hl►IH��Illflll��lii�uil����l city of San ,_ ,s OBISp0 _!; COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 13 estimated that if the City is not in a mandatory conservation mode and the current level of Water Conservation staffing is reduced to one full-time person, two to three additional contract staff will be required to administer a voluntary program. Financial Incentives As with a mandatory program, the key decision is the degree of assistance the City will offer in the form of a rebate. If a rebate program is desired, staff recommends the amount of the rebate be increased to $100 from the current $70 per toilet to generate sufficient incentive for water customers to participate. The advantage to a rebate is that it offers an financial offset to the cost of retrofitting. A rebate program would have to be financed and a discussion of alternatives for financing a rebate is included in the financial impact section. Purchasing Incentives The same type of program discussed in the mandatory program section could be made part of a voluntary program. An added disadvantage in a voluntary program is that the City staff could not provide accurate numbers of the number of toilets which would be retrofitted in a given year, making bulk purchase difficult, if not impossible. Regulatory Mechanisms Technically, a purely voluntary program would have no mandatory requirements. However, Council could consider adopting regulations that would add some enforcement and compliance level to a voluntary program so that progress toward City-wide retrofit, albeit more slow than in a mandatory program, could be assured. These regulations could include the same type of measures described in the Mandatory program section: retrofit upon sale, remodel or change in use. In addition, during mandatory water conservation, Council could consider not granting a water allocation increase until retrofitting has occurred or could grant a partial credit to customers who agree to retrofit who have been surcharged for water consumption in excess of their allocation. If Council desires, a financial disincentive, ranging between $2 to $5 a billing period, could be placed on all customers bills who have not complied. Mandatory compliance is not required, but noncompliance has an economic impact to the customer. Financial Impact A voluntary retrofit program in a non-drought time period will vary according to the level of rebate selected. If a $100/toilet rebate program is selected, the water rate equivalency increase would be $4.18/bimonthly for a single family household. (This is based on funding an estimated cost of rebating 10% of the City's toilets per year for five years.) 3-I city Of san lugs OBISPO Me A COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Retrofit Program Alternatives Page 14 SUMMARY It is evident that the primary decision which must be made is if the retrofit program is to be voluntary or mandatory in nature. Staff has attempted to present the various factors within the two options, and define the implications associated with using the assorted components in structuring a final plan. There is no question that a mandatory program achieves the desired results in the shortest time period; however, whether financial assistance is offered or not to encourage retrofitting, there is a financial impact to the water customers. As any plan becomes more economically palatable, the potential water savings take longer to achieve. While it does not guarantee 100% participation, a voluntary program offers less economic impact. If it is decided that a voluntary program will be implemented, staff strongly recommends that (1) the financial incentive is sufficient to stimulate participation (the $70 rebate be increased to $100); (2) a long term funding mechanism be established to finance a continuing rebate program; (3) a financial disincentive be developed; and (4) other regulatory means be used to expedite retrofitting. The financial disincentive could create a pool of money that could act as a rate stabilization fund, a concept recommended by the recently adopted AB11 which requires all jurisdictions to develop water shortage contingency plans. It is important to remember that the City's water customers have attained and continued very high levels of conservation for nearly three years. The estimates used in this report are based on normal levels of water consumption, and it could take several years to realize the level of water savings previously identified. Attachments: Exhibit A - WATER SUPPLY COST ESTIMATES Exhibit B - RETROFIT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES/COST COMPARISONS Exhibit C - SUMMARY OF STATEWIDE PROGRAMS ATTACHMENT A - HOW A LOW FLUSH TOILET WORKS ATTACHMENT B - LOW CONSUMPTION TOILET PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Exhibit A City of San Luis Obispo Summary of Water Supply Estimated Costs Annual Annual Yield Costs in Acre Feet Per Acre Foot Hardware Retrofit 13000 $470 5/ Desalination 1/ 39000 $1,883 State Water 1/ 39000 $370 Salinas Reservoir Expansion 1/ 11650 $393 Nacimiento Reservoir Countywide Project 41390 4/ $325 1/ City on Its own 2/ 31100 $806 Cloudseeding 3/ 11500 $50 NOTES 1/ Source: November 27, 1990 Council Agenda Report -Water Supply Alternatives. 2/ Source: April 16, 1991 Council Agenda Report - Reconnaissance Report on Nacimiento Reservoir Water. 3/Source: 1991 Water Operational Plan. 4/ Source: September 3, 1991 Council Agenda Report -Tentative Subscription for Nacimiento Project. 5/ Hardware retrofit costs are not amortized over 20 years, as in the other, except cloud-seeding, water supply projects shown. Bond-financing is not available for this type of project. 3-15 EXHIBIT B RM N +'�•�• i'Qs [.{:F i:r..':@'fh <� ..:.Sian +vF• co co U. co f��,�.'. a3 RE (A F�"` {:o ON <• ::iJ:;^.;*.>;•y%u:::'s}.;:4 3#f;.}+t# :i•o# 4 'iJ.u;:<�.::R x:ir;..:}<}:ik%:h: .s.F•z}•.A:,..:�i:.:s o b ��:xx<x>'::�?"'g`;:,ja',+��o, ::;.FF�� ir:":t's`? v>#t,2'•� :;£%Li: � e WAR s.'kC: rMEMO,; S:h::;:} k"`':'::#"o� ;:8:'s+::,C�:::' m m C E;'.`�.'si`Z•,{.tiG;c:Fo:� �"�:+':;'t}c,}� m E 9 O \.�'q'sj.:{i• 'a. 'S ,�txJ:#�f,^%:i;}:o;f � m r V � +.iAF1^5,•• {'n A:�i'\,ry.Srii; x'•f<'k�;.:k; � m m 0 V � A' .•33,?' � T:..'. �J^•:F'� x.•; .iOpv;''{.SO C G s }' m mcruj L c Ig r O t0 < Via• �O F::+;:..i;� ?r.:,.`"R::ff .. ME }, F., k'S; F:� � O cc � SM :;s: :C.:::.;y..;,. JJiJt.,�33;SE U::F':k:x)}:`'::{:>.::J Y :}•:H':.�:4::i:{` af d W V o "`8}{# W m s��'.': # a E io Qk..' Ca .FOk.t{Y,} ... r m LU Is {zE.t.}y"s;<:>;R'} : 'i:..: l:•`.J,Yfo� S. 3�5 r r n \ }r r cr X In O All, to :;:.;F}i:R:E':3v.F? ^ C 9 O r Z i}2G { :. 2 m m m ��fi�gg,, s O oC U b +fit: : .:::; $ E co o r:; N #x';F }>.:z}>#�:}: a :k:a4i}. 24 E a. N 3>. :<: ` :< to %>::#: :>`:'::.},a: to o•z;}::i;'J::<•J;x m e m icQ k�r3;'i'fQ�y+V..o:•:;: m m m 9 tC ;,^c�Ck::i?.}:J,}:{ i{:t:i'}s.:3;v.?:^,y;Y <`i�`i.:::.}:�i,^•.3, O L r .Y m {o, .ii L w: r �.oS..; ': ;?3:.;J.3. 9}::n O — iiik. .E?y ;�p:Ga?:.:;.:Yo. m m y _4i+:`.;: }u° O Ek ME O f0 ! d '+.2y':*; %`.ii\j "'1':?'.} cc 0 LLI � �:;'::3:({�!;;; to S:e " `• '• ",<: {.i; 'r u``"55 r m Q m m r: o:.. 8j df,As, ;ofsxQx; 's, `.'u^{,u}3N:: fiz: m r r C C R #y'.'S�.X.::�`. •.. �s»`�•;z., •,y:tYL;2.�`i:`.} r e c > m fill Vi'.?def ,.E•?•'}ryM...;y{< o ;}.. ,iL k$\":yL�.'# p � � 2 E Go r w? \? �k r 8 sag° W rFx..;s k+E b :nhk3;:%{;it t0 x�xz'?z#Cao � tk.'•}; � •}Ft:{}Y'' � � O m p y N J `<: :Ax.. 4 d +.:01:d;;:r. :}:L,: Yl .'•i:�.S,?}":,; o rm O. V Co ;iyy:s#k?k.{::i`i, }.::3F:::;?Ar .8:ikr{'SS£ O O O Q r F k: ts '`:ok:.:. o'%v`,,r. �#�'fi<:::.< Z t: C C m C _ m a x,.a s.x;#:;<��;%3s,}f', •:so}:<:u{2;`Y a�yr:#a8.::;?{$::5'ps. r m w.k.F:.k...:... mIL rkk::ky:} RS O ..;.`x.:;<•J 9 C m o J jkv�Yk<::?#`:n• �: z.:`.�¢S;i..L..: ..dr::,iF:?;.Gn'fi Q N Q 9 �i O :�.F''{,,%psb.k.s :..:2::;:';F "'{'k i s Mi" .Y i.}:s9:4,v::y'yS: �•x i{J:so. :'?iF i:a;:`t<. .}:<..::z�#'$'S.i:s y "?';k}:p' `k;AiC't — N M 4i CL Z vim `\3': :;+kN}ni:i'. :F\: ca F::?::5"°;",>.Y }} LL O J; :+:� •�i'':`}.i:. n:i'i:S Y.. t{1 :.:rF{f k:}'p�£ d CC T. LU ATTACHMENT A Y d 1 ' rim, in the good old days As long as toilets had lots of water to work with, designers needed to pay but scant attention to the underlying hydraulics of a flush. As one designer told us, "You took a lump of clay, molded it, drilled 30 holes by hand. It wasn't a precision instrument"Large volumes of water simply leveled v out the sample-to-sample variations. With low-flush toilets, every ounce of water has to be put to work. Here's how two basic .,,. types do that: :T-`The gravity flush The most elegant '• solutions use gravityto speed the course;.�; r �'` bowl and trap `�l:. of water through the bo .The.��.�:�`• - .;-�.,, wash0 comes through an open slot`s _rather than lime holes.The bowl,may ;;-;:-have steep sides© and a narrowed trap , `'e'• '!' ' :opening© . Limiting the amount of water • held in the bowl can realize further sav- :.c�:Y" Ate•:;?`. t ings. Low-Flush toilets generally have a w:smaller pool O , or awater spot;than ® �'` F "= conventional toilets:four by five inches rather than eight by nine. The smaller - : water spot does mean more frequent �/ cleaning with a toilet brush. _ sorl '10si„Ano�therway.to increase The pres1 T the watePs:veloatytrstoy eressunzed.flush One = �f ure.design utiGiesFie_house_ waterrrie pressA= . r pressurizes:w`afer tield�na iressel®inrithin the.toilet';. tank, Inlet water;pressesagatnst rubber-diaphragm inside the 4essecket.of air. Push- ~ al ( rele..ases the water: Other ing the flush vve designs use corttpress�ed ai; rom`an diitside source, such as a compressor:or-compressed-air tanks..In . our tests,pressurized-11us1 ;toilets.'ddn'twork as•well t as the best-designed gravity�flush models.: •`'- r- I�467 CONSUMER REPORTS JULY 1990 EXHIBIT C city of SLO-Retrofit Program Alternatives Other Retry it Program Rebate/Financial Statewide Incentive Program Regulatory Program MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT Retrofitting required at time of change In ownership, remodeling Increasing floor space by>25% now bathroom Is constructed. ULF toilets required In now service, Increased service connection, change In character. MOM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER Retrofitting required at time of MANAGEMENT DISTRICT change In ownership_ remodeling Increasing floor space by>25% Existing commercial,industrial, and public authority must meet now construction standards for shower heads and aerators. Toilets using more than 3.4 gal/flush mud reduce volume by at least 1 gal. ITY OF SANTA MONICA $1 00/replaced toilet. ULF toilets required In all now construction and certain remodeling situations. . ............ ...... :N ............ GOLETA WATER DISTRICT Fourth Year-amount of rebate Appeals for Increase In"at has varied-high was$100. water allocation not considered unless business or residence completely retrofitted. CITY OF LOS ANGELES ULF toilets required In oil now construction. Exstg buildings required to have 3.5 gal or less par flush. have (Documentation of compliance verified by CIM GROPER CITY Full cod of retrofitting and flooring changes paid by City City supplies toilet and list of pool of plumbing contractors to perform Installations- ---------- V • 0 ATTACMEENT B C E MI _L y O O � O C U y y ^` U c9 W U O C N U y U v Ey y U y O _ L y m ° 3 > y � 0 ; = y C d U o o 0 > o > �_ c E Z OL > .0 C m y y cc _� y 7 L c�C — 0 > y O m (D > s CY) O Q N p F- c t`d > y O F' O Q0 Qo c � o CL O y N U ? N � \ m O. :3ca .T V N > .S y /M cc r • lD _C L co _ > 0 O 0 L a? n cc aD r � Q y N j C L y O c p .a •� t0 ` N i U � m 5 ~ m m Oto QC C Q p n -0 N V C y Qc`0 y * pN � C E O` > (LA tC0 ` O _i O �' � Y m UQ r V y C E L C .0 CV CLL G!Z AlL N O V cc O C Z C1 U y ca W o f N LLE U E CD � m � � v � 78a L 7 O j '� L 7 L_ (n E Q 0 c ... a and °' ZQ 2cr q' m a� r 2 ¢ � Q � Q 4) 0 C W C W }� C Cb.M N W t'? 0 r co p W LU t? OLU LU 0 W$ t wt (n V5 .�.� � � �CZv� ��,� Zr q mG . � QQ VQQ aQQ 4 city of san tins OBISPO HARDWARE RETROFIT PROGRAM DESIGN FEBRUARY 1992 Because .of the complex nature of the retrofit issue, staff has developed the attached questionnaire to assist the discussion of the design of the City's hardware retrofit program. The actual cost of a final program cannot be accurately identified until Council provides direction on the various elements to be included in the program. SHOULD THE PROGRAM BE MANDATORY OR VOLUNTARY ? Considerations: ■ Achievement of retrofit goals within a time certain ■ Financial impact on water customers ■ Impact on ability to obtain building permits, if drought continues ■ Programmatic costs city of sAn luis oBispo 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 COFTESTO: January 31, 1992 ❑•Dcnotm Action QQ FYI e/� 0/CDDDIR �O-Gy CAO C3 FN.DTR OC ACRO ❑ FIRE CFOEFF TO: Council Members FEE �FwD>R. John Dunn ❑ rOuc:EO-L ❑ REC DR FROM: William T. Hetland ❑ flLE , Utilities Director ice_ �2 SUBJECT: QUESTIONNAIRE TO ASSIST STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGN OF HARDWARE RETROFIT PROGRAM Due to the complex nature of the retrofit issue, staff has developed the attached questionnaire to assist Tuesday night's study session discussion of the components of the City's retrofit program. Following Council's direction regarding whether the program should be mandatory or voluntary, staff hopes to direct attention to the appropriate one page titled "Voluntary Program Elements" or "Mandatory Program Elements" to focus on key questions. It is not staffs intent that this questionnaire be filled out before the meeting. Rather, it is hoped that the Council will have an opportunity to review the questionnaire and understand the approach staff will be taking during the study session. Thank you very much for your cooperation. RECEIVE ® 1110 A.M. JAN 31 1992 WY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA City of San Luis Obispo Hardware Retrofit Program Design MANDATORY PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1. TIMING How long until full compliance is required? 2 years 5 years 10 years Hlonger 2. INCENTIVES Should the program include any of the incentives below? a. Rebates O Yes No What level of rebate is appropriate? $70 cumene $100 More aggre lve $175 Full cosm to retroltt bathroom b. Centralized purchasing O Yes O No 3.' DISINCENTIVE Should the program include a financial disincentive? O Yes No If yes,should this be after a certain time? 6 mos. 12 mos 18 mos What level of surcharge would be appropriate? $2/month F-I$More/month 4. REGULATORY ELEMENTS Should additional regulatory elements be included? a. Retrofit required upon certain change O Yes O No to property(Le.,remodel or change in use;sale) b. Retrofit required prior to consideration of request O Yes O No for allocation increase during mandatory conservation. 5. FUNDING MECHANISMS Which of the funding mechanisms below should be included? a Water rate adjustment O Yes O No b. Water efficiency charge O Yes O No c. Other O Yes O . No City of San Luis Obispo Hardware Retrofit Program Design VOLUNTARY PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1. INCENTIVES Should the program include any of the incentives below? a. Rebates O Yes No What level of rebate is appropriate? $70 aRmrt $100 More eggre lw $175 Full oosb to retreflt bethr b. Centralized purchasing Yes No 2. DISINCENTIVE Should the program include a financial disincentive? Yes No If yes, should this be after a certain time? 6 mos. 12 mos 18 mos What level of surcharge would be appropriate? $2/month R$More/month 4. REGULATORY ELEMENTS Should additional regulatory elements be included? a. Retrofit required upon certain change Yes O No to property (Le., remodel or change In use; sale) b. Retrofit required prior to consideration of request Yes No for allocation increase during mandatory conservation. 5. FUNDING MECHANISMS Which of the funding mechanisms below should be included? a. Water rate adjustment Yes No b. Water efficiency charge Yes No c. Other Yes No