HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/14/2002, 2 - WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY RESERVE I i
council
j aGEnaa RepoRt 2
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director
Prepared By: Gary W. Henderson; Water Division Manager
SUBJECT: WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY RESERVE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Consider the modification or elimination of Policy 4.0 of the Water Management Element
relative to the reliability reserve.
REPORT IN BRIEF
The cost implications associated with the policy to develop a 2,000 acre foot (af) reliability
reserve were recently discussed during Council's adoption of revised water impact fees on March
12 and April 2, 2002. In addition; the per capita use (145 gallons per person per day) figure was
also discussed since the figure directly impacts the amount of water that the City needs to
develop to meet General Plan build-out. These two related issues drive the amount of water that
the City needs to develop, and have potentially significant fiscal and other related impacts.
The reliability reserve was first proposed in 1990, prior to the end of the most significant drought
period experienced by the City during the historical record from 1944 to present. At the time of
Council adoption of the policy, there was no analysis of the value of.the reserve (level of
protection provided) or the long-term fiscal impacts. The recent analysis undertaken to answer
these questions revealed the following key points:
1. The estimated_ cost for developing additional water supply projects has increased by
almost 3 times, which would result in an annual cost of $3.1 million for the 2,000 of
reliability reserve. (Page 3 of the report)
2. The issues associated with developing one or more water supply projects to provide for
the reserve include environmental impacts as well as fiscal impacts. (Page 3)
3. Since approximately 80% of the reserve would be for existing water customers, it is
estimated that a 21% rate increase (or higher if project costs increase in future) would be
necessary in the future to fund the reserve. (Page 3)
4. The reliability reserve would at best provide 12 months of additional water supply
during drought conditions. To achieve the additional 12 months would also require the
City to use the 2,000 of from the new water supply source each year and "bank" water
(i.e. reduce amount taken from) in Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. (Page 4)
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 2
5. Other than the 1986-91 drought, there is no other drought period since 1944 that would
have required use of the reliability reserve. (Page 4)
6. The City's adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan and the difference between actual
water use and the water use factor of 145 gpcd provide a level of protection for future
water shortage periods which is roughly equivalent to that provided by the reserve.
(Page 5)
With the significant cost implications, relatively low level of protection and limited number of
times when the reserve would have been necessary, staff recommends that the Council consider
elimination of the policy for developing a 2,000 of reliability reserve. Staff would recommend
maintaining the 145 gpcd planning figure to provide the buffer for water planning purposes. The
actual water use has remained well below the 145 figure and has been accomplished by the water
conservation awareness and water efficient hardware retrofits that the community has
accomplished. This buffer has already been achieved by our customers and would not require
any rate increases associated with the reliability reserve, which were noted above.
DISCUSSION
On March 12 and April 2 of 2002, the Council discussed and adopted revised water impact fees
based on the improvements identified in the Water System Master Plan and updated costs
associated with new water supply projects. As discussed at these Council meetings, two factors
that have a significant impact on the amount of water that the City needs to develop are the
"reliability reserve" and the adopted "water use" figure of 145 gallons per person per day (gpcd).
This report will discuss these two interrelated issues and potential modifications that Council
may consider. Since these policies are included in the Water Management Element of the
General Plan, any modifications will require public hearings before the Planning Commission
prior to hearings before the City Council for adoption.
Reliability Reserve
Why was the reliability reserve originally established? To address the problems associated
with determining safe annual yield and unexpected conditions affecting the safe annual
yield. The idea of establishing a water supply reserve first came forward during the drought
period which began in 1986 and ended in March of 1991. At the Council's request on April 2,
2002, staff researched information from this earlier time period to determine the reasons and
justification for the 2,000 acre foot reserve figure. The first reference to the reserve was
identified in a November 27, 1990 staff report titled "Water Supply Status and Development".
This report covered numerous water supply projects being pursued at the time in light of the
severe drought that the City was experiencing. One paragraph in the report discusses the reserve
(which was originally referred to as a "planning reserve") and the full text is shown below:
"The City has experienced problems with safe annual yield determinations in the past.
Changes may occur in the future due to "live stream" requirements, new hydrological
data based on the current drought, and changes in water rights law, etc. For these
2-2
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 3
reasons, it is prudent to have a planning reserve of additional water supplies to account
for future unexpected conditions. Staff recommends the City develop an additional 25%
increase, or about 2,000 of of its safe annual yield as a planning reserve."
As far as staff can determine, there was no technical basis (i.e. it would provide an additional X
years of water supply through the worst drought) for the 2,000 acre foot figure. It should be
noted that this goal was identified prior to the end of the drought. Following the end of the
drought, staff updated the City's safe annual yield computer model to include this new drought
period which resulted in a reduction of the projected safe annual yield that is available through
the coordinated operation of Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs. The City's current water
availability is based on this revised safe annual yield analysis and also includes estimated
reductions due to siltation at both reservoirs.
Following numerous public hearings, the City Council adopted the City's Urban Water
Management Plan (UWMP) on November 15, 1994. Policy 2.4 which identified the desire to
develop a reliability reserve is shown below:
"In seeking and accounting for new water supplies, the City will strive for a "reliability
reserve" of 2,000 acre-feet safe annual yield(about 20 percent of projected future water
demand at full build-out)."
At the time that Policy 2.4 was adopted, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project costs were
estimated to provide additional water supplies in the range of$500 to $600 per acre foot. These
costs are approximately one-third the current cost estimates for additional water from the
Nacimiento Project. The cost for the 2,000 of reliability reserve has increased from $1 million
per year to$3.1 million.
What issues have changed since the policy for a reserve was originally envisioned by the City
Council? The City has revised (lowered) the safe annual yield estimates for Salinas and
Whale Rock Reservoirs based on the 1986-91 drought period. In addition, the estimated
cost for additional water supply projects has nearly tripled (and may be higher in the
future). The policy for the reserve was made without an analysis of the value of the reserve
(level of protection provided) or the cost impacts (currently projected at $3.1 million per
year for the reserve).
What are the implications associated with developing the reliability reserve? The issues
include environmental considerations, multiple projects being pursued, and fiscal impacts.
The 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve represents approximately 53% of the additional water
supplies currently being pursued to meet the policy and build-out water demands of the City.
The development of additional water supplies, depending on the source, will have,some level of
environmental impact associated with the project. With the large amount of additional water
supplies currently being pursued, multiple projects may be necessary to develop the projected
amounts. In addition, as discussed in detail at the March 12, 2002 Council meeting, the
reliability reserve will have significant cost implications to both existing water customers as well
3
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 4
as new development. Since approximately 80% of the reserve is to serve existing customers, it is
currently estimated that a rate increase of approximately 21% would be necessary to pay for
existing customers portion of the reliability reserve. The other 20% of the costs for the reliability
reserve are included in the revised water impact fees for new development which were adopted
on April 2, 2002 (new fees take affect on July 1, 2002). If the Council chooses to reduce or
eliminate the reliability reserve, the projected 21% water rate increase for existing customers
would be reduced or eliminated. In addition, the water impact fees for new development would
be reduced slightly associated with the elimination of their share (20%) of the reliability reserve.
What level of protection does the 2,000 acre foot reliability reserve provide to the community if it
were obtained? The reserve could provide up to an additional 12 months of water supply
during water shortage period as discussed in more detail below.
The level of protection that the reliability reserve would provide has never been clearly analyzed
or evaluated. Opinions throughout the community relative to what the reserve should provide
would likely range from "it would never require the community to enter mandatory rationing
again" to"it will provide a buffer for a non-rainy day".
In an attempt to answer this question, staff used the computer model that was developed to
analyze the safe annual yield available from Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs to run various
scenarios if the 2,000 acre foot (af) supply had been available to the City for the past 56 years.
The computer model uses historical data from 1944 to 2000 and various assumptions to estimate
what level of protection the reserve could have provided over this time period.
The analysis revealed that if 2,000 acre foot had been available each year during the recent
drought (1986-91) and assuming the City demand was equal to the current safe annual yield from
the two lakes, the City would have approximately 10 to 12 months of additional water supplies at
the end of the critical drought period. Attachment 1 and 2 graphically show the model
projections of water supplies in the reservoirs with and without the reserve (Scenario 1 is without
use of reserve). This assumes that the 2,000 of would be used every year during the drought
period. Since no one can be sure when the beginning of the next critical drought would occur,
the City would need to utilize the 2,000 of every year (under this scenario) which reduces the
amount that is taken from Whale Rock and Salinas Reservoirs. This essentially "banks" some
water in the two existing lakes.
Staff also analyzed other Table 1: Reliability Reserve Levels of Protection
scenarios to determine the
level of protection Reserve Used During Extension of Available Water Supplies
provided if the 2,000 acre Last 3 Years 6-7 months
foot reserve were used Last 2 Years 5-6 months
during the last 3 years of Last Year 4-5 months
the drought, 2 years of the
drought, etc. as shown in
Table 1.
I 1
Council Agenda Report-Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 5
Would the City have needed to use the reserve other than during the 1986-91 drought? The
short answer is,NO. Staff simulated using the 2,000 of in the computer model only during the
controlling drought period from 1986 through March of 1991. The analysis indicates that at the
end of this drought period,the City would have had approximately 7,500 of in Whale Rock
Reservoir(approximately 10-12 months supply). Since the computer model goes back to 1944,
the results were evaluated to determine whether there was another drought period when there
would have been less than 7,500 of without the use of the 2,000 af. The results indicate that there
would have been one other drought period that approached this amount without the use of the
reserve. This indicates that the drought period of 1986-91 was a very significant, critical drought
period surpassing any other drought period during the last 56 years as it affects the City's water
supply sources. In summary,the analysis would indicate that the City would not have needed to
use the reliability reserve for any period except the controlling drought in the last 56 years. At
today's estimated cost, this equates to an annual $3.1 million insurance policy that may be
needed infrequently and only buys an additional year's worth of water, at best.
If the reserve is reduced or eliminated, what other measures are available which can provide
protection to the City in future droughts? The City's adopted Water Shortage Contingency
Plan and the difference between the actual water use and the 145 gpcd planning figure.
The adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan was not included in the analysis of the scenarios
discussed above. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan has three action levels that are triggered
when water supplies are projected to last 3 years or less. Implementation and achievement of the
identified water reductions during these events will extend available supplies from 9 to 12
months, depending on the City's water demand in the future.
More importantly, the second safety factor (discussed in more detail in the following sections of
this report) is the difference between the water use factor used for planning purposes of 145 gpcd
versus the actual water use. The goal is to continue to keep the overall community per capita use
rate well below the 145 figure. If the figure over the long-term can be maintained around 125 to
130 gpcd,this would represent a buffer of approximately 10 to 15%.
An additional area for consideration which may provide a certain level of protection would be
working with other agencies in the. County to develop "mutual aid" type agreements to share
water resources during emergency periods. Cooperative use of the City of Morro Bay's
desalination facility (or expanded facility) could be an example of one such alternative.
If the Council decided to eliminate the reliability reserve, would the City Charter need to be
amended? The short answer is, Yes, for consistency purposes but not to adopt the change
in policy. In the November 1996 election, Measure P was placed on the ballot relative to the
reliability reserve. The voters approved the Charter amendment which added Section 909 as
shown below:
"As identified in the Water Management Element of the General Plan, the City shall
strive to acquire additional water supplies as a "reliability reserve" to protect the City
�-5
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 6
from future water shortages. Once the City has acquired a portion or all of the reliability
reserve, the additional water supply shall only be used to meet City needs during
unpredictable changes such as a new worst case drought, loss of one of the City's
sources, contamination of a source, or failure of a new source to provide projected yield,
and not to allow additional development." '
The language above notes that the Water Management Element (WME) policy indicates that the
City shall strive to acquire a reliability reserve. This does not mandate that the City develop the
reserve, or how the City develops or achieves the equivalence of the reserve, but the reason the
City Council placed the language on the ballot was to insure that if additional supplies were
developed, it would not be used in the future for additional growth. The concern was that a
future Council, on a 3 to 2 vote, could change the policy. If the Council decides to eliminate the
reliability reserve policy, a Charter amendment should be undertaken to delete Section 909. Staff
does not believe that a Charter amendment is required for the Council to eliminate the reserve
policy in the WME but rather, to ensure consistency between the WME of the General Plan and
the City Charter.
145 gpcd Water Use Figure
The "water use" figure adopted Graph 1: Per Capita Use
in the WME received significant 200 CO r °N° "'
r r
discussion during the A �,
development of the UWMP. 0 150 °r° w r r °r°
Graph 1 shows the historic per ; 100 m CD r T
capita water use since 1985. The a
drastic reduction in the per capita o 50
water use during the drought was
achieved through public 0 0
education and awareness, C) CO rn rn M M 0) CD c
monetary penalties and related T T '- Year
measures. Following the
drought, it was acknowledged that these extremely low rates could not be maintained over the
long-term and that there is a certain level of water needed to provide a reasonable quality of life
for residents, which includes water for landscaping and gardens. It was also acknowledged that
conservation .is likely the least expensive source of additional water when compared to
developing new water supply sources, which it has proven to be.
While per capita use increased following the end of the drought up to 1997, the use appears to
have stabilized over the past several years. A number of factors can impact the per capita use
rate including, timing of yearly rainfall and the amount, population figure estimates from the
State which can fluctuate, and retrofitting that has been an ongoing requirement for new
development since 1989. It should be acknowledged that new development has been required to
retrofit to not only offset their expected use but at twice the estimated use (i.e. 2 to 1). The .
mandatory retrofit requirement was eliminated as of January 1, 2002 based on the fact that the
majority of existing toilets have been retrofit. Using information from 1995 through 2001, staff
2 -�
Council Agenda.Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page 7
estimates that retrofitting existing facilities served by the City saves approximately 550 of per
year. If these retrofits had not been completed, the per capita use rate for 2001 would increase
from the 118 gpcd figure shown above to 129 gpcd. With the elimination of the retrofit
requirement, the overall per capita use figure may tend to increase as new development occurs.
Maintaining per capita use rates in the 130 gpcd range may be achievable but additional time is
be needed to insure use will remain at these lower levels.
There have been discussions of lowering the "water use" figure below the 145 level. Adopting a
lower per capita use figure, based on other policies in the WME, would immediately create
additional water for new development. If the figure were lowered to 140 gpcd, there would be an
additional 250 of available for new development at this time.
As noted earlier, maintaining the current 145 gpcd figure provides a buffer between actual use
and the planning figure of approximately 10-15%. Staff recommends maintaining the planning
per capita use rate at the current 145 gpcd as a buffer until such time as supply project options,
feasibility, and costs are evaluated and reviewed by Council in light of eliminating the reserve
requirement.
Summary
Based on the above discussions and the information presented in the March 12, 2002 Council
report relative to the cost implications associated with developing a reliability reserve and the
level of protection provided by the reserve, Council is being asked to reconsider the policy for
developing the reliability reserve. If the reserve is eliminated, staff would recommend that the
"water use" figure remain at 145 gpcd. The elimination of the reliability reserve will negate the
need for a rate increase for existing customers associated with the reserve. The difference
between the actual use rate and the 145 figure, that has been achieved through increased
conservation, would serve as the buffer. The water that has been conserved by the community
would serve as part of the insurance policy without any additional costs or rate increases.
In addition, the adopted Water Shortage Contingency Plan will be implemented when supplies
are estimated to last 3 years or less which will extend available water supplies. If Council wishes
to revise the policies as noted above, the issues would be referred to the Planning Commission
and the brought back to the City Council for adoption as a revision to the Water Management
Element of the General Plan.
The modification or elimination of the reliability reserve will have a dramatic impact on the
amount of water that the City will need to develop from new sources of supply. Following
Council direction tonight, staff will return with a thorough discussion of the water supply
projects that should be pursued as part of the 2002 Water Resources Status Report on June 11,
2002. `
� -7
1
Council Agenda Report—Water Supply Reliability Reserve
Page S
FISCAL IMPACT
Depending on the modifications made to the policies discussed above, there could be long range
cost impacts (increases or reductions) to both water rates and development impact fees. No
impacts are associated with this staff report since no formal action can be taken to modify the
policies without the full General Plan process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the 145 Water Use Figure and Maintain the 2,000 of Reliability Reserve.
Reducing the water use figure to 140 gpcd, for example, would immediately provide
approximately 250 of for new development based on existing Water Management Element
policies. This option would utilize part of the buffer already developed through conservation
measures and necessitate development of additional water supplies to provide a reserve. This
additional reserve (speculative) would require future water rate increases. With the
significant annual cost associated with the reliability reserve, the relatively low level of
"insurance" protection, and the projected rate increases for existing residents to fund this
protection level, staff would not recommend this alternative.
2. Do not.modify either of the policies. This will require the City to continue to pursue an
additional 2,000 of of water supplies to provide for the reliability reserve. Assuming the
reserve is acquired from the Nacimiento Project at an estimated cost of$1,550 per af, this
will result in an annual cost to the City of $3.1 million. Based on the level of protection
provided by a 2,000 of reliability reserve, staff does not recommend this alternative.
3. Reduce the amount of the reliability reserve. The level of protection provided by a 2,000
of reliability reserve is relatively low. Any reduction in the amount of the reserve will only
reduce the level of protection provide. Staff does not recommend this alternative:
ATTACHMENTS
1. Graph of projected water supplies during drought period without reliability reserve.
2. Graph of projected water supplies during drought period with reliability reserve.
3. Ballot Measure and analysis relative to the reliability reserve (November 1996)
Council Reading File:
1. "Water Supply Status and Development" Council Agenda Report dated November 27,
1990.
2. Minutes from November 27, 1990 City Council meeting.
2_g,
AT��.IC41M�T
L
'o
Z
CD
w
m
o L
m ccU
N 0 m LL
9
m m m c0
07 to r a O O O
II m 7 cf) O
D N c `o o a
m It C m 'm' — m E
CL Q o m ;o, c
a m 3a
v
Y m fmA I` m L
w C 0 V It tt m m V
Wy m �• m C M •• '
m m m
E m C I
s u N
m m o u o
m 3 w o z 0
' rn
� rn
T
T
O •
L o
W
N
C
O
vo�
d :
O
Go
L L
a
a
a Go
0)
obod
d
7 I`
m
rn
l000
O
T
rn
O T
i
ca
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cn LO a -q Cl) C07 N N O
116
(3aa{-alae)aBe�ou
�-9
0
v �
`o CD
to
m m
L
N 7
O `p L
_ T` co
U
v «
c O. W
N C11 *0 p « m
O N N c d co
M
ccY Z G O O
n ci W Ap aO
N c z. O
.o
U p c m ° m E
a a oof O O
` N — a
n W m w E E
IE0 m Fm U rc m Sm c E CL c c - o 0
0 N VN
r fN M O O
Dan
r
dog
co
s
3
c
� o
aN
m
a :
CL
cn '-
ca
d •- OD
ea
O p
C n
.. c
0
N
O
i
c
C �
V 0)
00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ld
� 'C V f7 Cl) N N I O
(1001-one)eaelo3S
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE FULL OF MEAS
PROPOSED CHANGES PROPOSED CHAN(
(Showing Changes to Charter) (Showing Changes to l........
Section 909. Use of Water Supply Reliability Reserve. SECTION 406. Vacancies.
As identified in the Water Management Element of the Genesi Plan. An elective office becomes vacant when the incumbent thereof dies,
the City shall strive to acquire additional water supplies as a"reliability resigns, is removed from office under recall proceedings, is adjudged
reserve' to protect the Cit' from future water shortages. Once the insane, convicted of a felony, or of an offense involving a violation
City has acquired a portion or all of the reliability reserve,the additional of the Mayor or Councilmember's official duties, or ceases to be a
water supply shall only be used to.meel City needs during unpredictable resident of the City, or has been absent from the State without leave
changes in water supply status such as a new worst case drought granted by the City Council for more than sixty(60)consecutive days,
loss of one of the City's water sources, contamination of a source, or fails to attend the meetings of the Council for a like period without
or failure of a new source to provide Proiected yield, and not to allow being excused therefrom by said body.
additional development. A vacancy in the Council shall be filled for the remainder of the
unexpired term, if any, at the next regular municipal election following
not less than seventy-two (72) days upon the occurrence of the va-
cancy, but the Council by a majority vote of its remaining members
shall appoint a qualified person to fill the vacancy until the person
elected to serve the remainder of the unexpired term or new term
takes office. If the term still has two (2) years until expiration at the
time of the next regular municipal election, the election to that seat
shall be separated from the election for the other Council candidates.
If the Council fails to fill the vacancy within (30) days following its
occurrence,it shall call a special municipal election to fill the vacancy,
to be held not sooner than ninety (90) days or not later than one
hundred and !went., (129) fifty 150 days following the occurrence
of the vacancy. The election shall be governed by the provisions of
Article 111.
A person elected to fill a council vacancy for an unexpired term
shall take office on the first Tuesday following his election. Notwith-
standing any other provisions of this Charter,a minority of the members
of the Council may fill vacancies on the Council by appointment in
the event that a majority of the Council seats becomes vacant..
IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS BY CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CHARTER PROPOSITION CITY CHARTER PROPOSITION
MEASURE P MEASURE 0
In 1993 the City Council amended the Water Management Element Existing Charter Section 406 provides that the Council must fill a
of the City's General Plan to establish the objective of acquiring a Council vacancy within 30 days by appointment,and if an appointment
'water supply reliability reserve'to protect the City from future water is not made within that time period, to hold an election to fill the
shortages. In order to make it clear that such a reliability reserve vacancy not sooner than 90 days nor loner than 120 days from the
shall not be used to allow additional development, and to require occurrence of the vacancy. However, it is not possible to hold an
voter approval of any change of use of the reliability reserve once election within 120 days and still comply with State Election Code
it is obtained, the City Council directed that this Charter amendment requirements concerning nomination periods and publication of the
be submitted to the voters. If approved, this'amendment would add Notice of Election.This Charter amendment would extend the period
a new Charter Section 909 which limits the use of any water supply of time in which an election must by held for an additional 30 days,
reliability reserve which may be acquired only to maintain an adequate for a total of 150 days, so that the Election Code requirements can
City water supply during unpredictable changes in water supply status be met.
such as a new worst case drought, loss of one of the City's water
sources, contamination of a source, or failure of a new source to s/Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
provide projected yield, and not to.allow additional development. If City Attorney
approved, this Charter provision concerning the use of the water
supply reliability reserve may only be amended by a subsequent vote
of the people.
sl Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
City Attorney
NO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST NO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST
THIS MEASURE WAS SUBMITTED THIS MEASURE WAS SUBMITTED
40-518 iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII
�. �FILC
liltI��ii�ii�Illllllii'i1Q' 9lll
MEETI G;f�y o ZAGENDA 2
council McMOR� ITEM #_
May 10, 2002
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer ouNCll ED CDD DIP
�0 ❑ FIN DIP
Bill Statler, Director of Finance —�0 ❑ FIRE CHIEF
John Moss, Utilities Director ['ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
❑ CLERIVORID ❑ POLICE CHF
SUBJECT: RELIABILITY RESERVE ❑ DEPT HEADS [I PEC DIP
❑�� UTIL DIP
❑ Ln� HF1 61R
In the May 14 Council agenda report recommending that the Council consider modifying the
reliability reserve, we note that eliminating it altogether would result in no need for a future
general-purpose rate increase for supply purposes. It would also result in a reduced water impact
fee.
The following summary compares the assumptions used in impact fee analysis presented to the
Council on March 12, and the resulting fee per"equivalent dwelling unit" (EDU) adopted by the
Council on April 2,with, for example,the assumption of eliminating the reliability reserve.
As reflected in this summary, the need for future general-purpose rate increases is essentially
eliminated; and the water impact fee per EDU (which is based on single family residences) is
reduced by$3,191 (from $11,256 to $8,065) with this changed assumption.
Water SUDDly Assumptions,Costs and Availability
At 3-12-021 Revised
ASSUMPTIONS
■ Demand: Gallons per capita per day 145 145
■ Reliability reserve (acre feet) 2,000 0
■ Current population * 44,613 44,426
■ Safe annual yield (SAY): Unadjusted for siltation ** 7,735 7,790
■ Next supply cost after water reuse 1,550 1,550
IM PACT
■ Water impact fee (supply, treatment & distribution) $ 11,256 $ 8,065
■ General purpose rate increase 21.5% 1.1%
■ New supplies needed 3,861 1,806
s Current availability: Adjusted for siltation 273 304
* We just received our official State population estimate for January 1,2002.
** 'The Mirch 12 analysis incorrectly used the safe annual yield from the 1994 Urban Water Management Plan;it
has since been adjusted by 55 acre feet.
As suggested by Council Member Ewan, we have developed the above spreadsheet for
presentation at the meeting to show the impact of changes in key assumptions (such as the per
capita use rate and amount of the reliability reserve) on water impact fees, general-purpose rate
increases, new supplies need and current supply availability. (These key variables are shown
above in bold italics.) This will facilitate `what if' discussions at the meeting. In the interim,
please call Bill Statler at x125 if you have any questions on the ' e
reliability reserve.
Mg �nn�
G:Water and Sewer Impact Fees/Adoption of Revised Fees/Council Memorandum—Reliability Reserve I SLO CITY COUNCIL