No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-07 - Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee Meeting Agenda Packet• J YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT PLANNING-ENGINEERING-OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, August 7, 2008, 4:00 p.m. 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia - Tel: (714) 701-3020 ITEMS DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD COMMITTEE LESS THAN 72 HOURS PRIOR TO MEETING Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.5, non-exempt public records that relate to open session agenda items and are distributed to a majority of the Board less than seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in the lobby of the District's business office located at 1717 E. Miraloma Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870, during regular business hours. When practical, these public records will also be made available on the District's internet website accessible at bftp://www.%flwdC4y wd.com. AGENDA COMMITTEE: STAFF: Director William R. Mills, Chair Ken Vecchiarelli, Asst. General Manager Director Paul R. Armstrong Lee Cory, Operations Manager John DeCriscio, Chief Plant Operator Ken Mendum, Operations Superintendent Stacy Bavol, Customer Service Supervisor Jennifer Hill, Meter Services Representative INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS Any individual wishing to address the Committee is requested to identify themselves and state the matter on which they wish to comment. If the matter is on this agenda, the Committee Chair will recognize the individual for their comment when the item is considered. No action will be taken on matters not listed on this agenda. Comments are limited to matters of public interest and matters within the jurisdiction of the Water District. Comments are limited to five minutes. DISCUSSION ITEMS: This portion of the agenda is for matters such as technical presentations, drafts of proposed policies, or similar items for which staff is seeking the advice and counsel of the Committee Members. This portion of the agenda may also include items for information only. 1. Status Report on the Meter Replacement and Radio Read Retrofit Project. 2. Preventative Maintenance Program Status Report. 3. Monthly Water Production and Purchased Imports through July 2008. 4. Monthly Orange County Groundwater Producers Meetings. 5. Monthly MWDOC Managers Meeting Summary Report. • 6. MWD Allocation Plan & MWDOC Implementation Plan. 7. Draft Irrigation Feasibility Study. 8. Meeting with City of Yorba Linda on Irrigation Demand Management. 9. Proposed Action Plan Responding to OC Grand Jury Report. 10. Status Report on Capital Improvement Projects in Progress. ACTION ITEMS: This portion of the agenda is for items where staff presentations and committee discussions are needed prior to formal committee actions. No Action Items. ADJOURNMENT: The next regularly scheduled Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee will be held September 4, 2008 at 4:00 p.m. Accommodations for the Disabled: Any person may make a request for a disability-related modification or accommodation needed for that person to be able to participate in the public meeting by telephoning Michael A. Payne, District Secretary, at 714-701-3020, or writing to Yorba Linda Water District, P.O. Box 309, Yorba Linda, CA 92885-0309. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. A telephone number or other contact information should be included so the District staff may discuss appropriate arrangements. Persons requesting a disability-related accommodation should make the request with adequate time before the meeting for the District to provide the requested accommodation. • n U -2- ITEM NO. AGENDA REPORT Committee Meeting Date: August 7, 2008 To: Planning-Engineering-Operations Committee From: Ken Vecchiarelli, Assistant General Manager Staff Contact: Stacy Bavol - Customer Service Supervisor Reviewed by General Counsel: N/A Budgeted: Yes Total Budget: $ 3.964M Funding Source: Water Revenue Bond CEQA Compliance: Exempt Account No: 101-2700 Job Nos: 200512, 200801 & 200802 Estimated Costs: $ 3.875M Dept: Bus & Ops Subject: Completion of the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project, Phase I and Status Report for the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project, Phase H. SUMMARY: The Board of Directors approved Phase I of the Meter Replacement Project with the adoption of the Fiscal Years 2005-2007 budget. With Board approval, the Yorba Linda Water District entered into a two year contract with Aqua-Metric to complete the task of replacing approximately 7,600 meters at a labor charge of $40 each plus material costs of approximately $300 each. Aqua-Metric completed their contract with the District in September of 2007. Within the FY 2007-2009 approved budgets and the approved Capital Improvement Projects List for FY 2007-2012, funds were designated for use to complete Phase I and begin Phase II of the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project. DISCUSSION: Aqua-Metric completed 6,142 meter replacements from October 2005 to September 2007 at a labor charge of $40 each. YLWD paid approximately $300 in material costs for these replacements, which included the cost of the %-inch and 1-inch meters and the radio read transmitter devices, for a total of approximately $2.09M for the Aqua-Metric portion of the project. YLWD staff completed the balance of the meter replacements skipped by Aqua-Metric because they were complicated replacements or difficult to access. YLWD staff also replaced all the large commercial and landscape meters, many of which required work to be scheduled on weekends or early morning hours. In total, YLWD staff replaced nearly 1,100 meters in the Western Service Area (WSA). In addition, YLWD staff completed all the retrofit work in this area, which included the installation of new registers and radio read transmitters on approximately 4,400 existing Sensus meters. With the completion of these efforts the entire Western Service Area can now be read by a vehicle based unit along with the newly annexed and recently developed areas along the northwest half of the District's service area, for a total of 13,934 radio read meters in this Phase I project. An exhibit showing the project status is attached for your reference. Phase II of the Radio Read Meter Replacement Project is the service area known as Improvement District I (ID 1) which includes all meter routes with a 600 series number. The majority of the meters within this area are 22-28 years old. Many of these meters are the Badger brand with plastic body types. The manufacturer only estimated the life of this type of meter to be 10 to 15 years. The ID 1 Service Area contains 6,853 service connections of which 1,133 are now ready radio read meters. The majority of these meters have been replaced through past maintenance efforts as the meter bodies cracked and began to leak. Additionally, 68 are new meter sets in the new S&S development, 163 new radio read meters have been set by YLWD crews through efforts under the new project with an additional 113 retrofits completed to date from January through July of this calendar year. The current Phase II approved budget identified YLWD commencing efforts to replace and retrofit approximately 2,500 meters in this service area. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION(S): See Summary Section above. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is compiling the costs spent to date for Phase I and Phase II efforts and will need to complete the accounting work necessary before making a final recommendation to continue these efforts. o 4f.M -1~ T- 0 5! Z YLWD RADIO READ METER CONVERSION PROJECT PHASE I (WSA & Annexations) Meter Replacements (Budgeted w/ Outside Labor): Meter Size Qty. Mat l Cost Labor Subtotal 3/4 -inch 1,714 $ 237.49 $ 40 $ 475,617.86 1 -inch 5,966 $ 284.86 $ 40 $ 1,938,114.76 TOTAL 7,680 TOTAL $ 2,413,732.62 Meter Replacements (Budgeted w/ YLWD Labor): Meter Size Qty. Mat'I Cost Labor Subtotal 1 1/2 -inch 153 $ 473.72 - $ 72,479.16 2 -inch 207 $ 573.73 - $ 118,762.11 TOTAL 360 TOTAL $ 191,241.27 Radio Read Retrofits (Sensus Meters/YLWD Labor): Meter Size Qty. MaYI Cost Labor Subtotal Various 2,600 $ 150.85 $ 392,210.00 $ 25 $ 65,000.00 TOTAL $ 457,210.00 PHASE II Portion of ID No. 1 Meter Replacements (Budgeted w/ YLWD Labor): 11-inch 2,500 $ 324.50 - $ 811,250.00 BUDGETED TOTAL (PH. I & II) $ 3,873,433.89 CIP BUDGETED TOTAL (PH. I & 11) $ 3,964,000 YLWD RADIO READ METER CONVERSION PROJECT PHASE I WSA & Annexations Meter Replacements (Outside Labor): Meter Size Qty. Marl Cost Labor Subtotal 3/4 -inch 1,371 $ 237.49 $ 40 $ 380,438.79 1 -inch 4,771 $ 284.86 $ 40 $ 1,549 907.06 TOTAL 6,142 TOTAL $ 1,930,345.85 (5,518) Adjusted TOTAL: $ 1,905,385.85 Meters Replaced w/ YLWD Labor: Meter Size Qty. Mat9 Cost Labor Subtotal 3/4 -inch 343 $ 291.73 $ 100,063.39 1 -inch 1,195 $ 324.50 $ 387,777.50 1 1/2 -inch 153 $ 473.72 - $ 72,479.16 2 -inch 207 $ 573.73 - $ 118,762.11 TOTAL 1,898 TOTAL $ 679,082.16 Radio Read Retrofits (Sensus Meters/YLWD Labor): Meter Size Qty. Mafl Cost Labor Subtotal Various 3,603 $ 150.85 $ 543,512.55 TOTAL $ 543,512.55 ESTIMATED TOTAL (Ph. 1): $ 3,152,940.56 PHASE II Portion of ID No. 1 Meters Replaced w/ YLWD Labor: Meter Size Qty. Marl Cost Labor Subtotal 1 -inch 163 $ 324.50 - $ 52,893.50 Retrofits 113 $ 150.85 $ 17,046.05 RADIO READ METERS IN WSA & ANNEXATION AREAS New Development 1,620 YLWD Replacements (Prior to PH. 1) 747 AquaMetrics Replacements (PH. 1) 6,142 YLWD Replacements (PH. 1) 1,898 YLWD Retrofits (PH. 1) 3,603 14,010 ESTIMATED YLWD LABOR COMPONENT (Retrofits): YLWD completed 450 Retrofits w/2 FTE's in 2.5 days. Equivalent Calc: 1 FTE Xours X $40 /hr = $1,200 A10 Per Unit Cost: $2.67 AQUA - Metrics proposal @ $25 /unit: $ 11,250 Savings: $10,500 ESTIMATED YLWD LABOR COMPONENT 4Meter Sets): 2 man crew @ 6 months part time plus 5 FTE's at 1 month 2080+ (5`173.3) @ $40/hr = $ 117,867- AQUA - Metrics proposal @ $25 /retrofits & $40 /mtr. sets: $ 175,340 ESTIMATED TOTAL TO DATE (PH. I & 11) $ 3,205,834.06 (Not including YLWD Labor costs) Savings Using YLWD Labor: $ 57,473 ITEM # PM PROGRAM 2008/2009 TO BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30th 2009 EAST SIDE 2008 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Percent of target 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 33% 38% 44% 50% 56% 61% 67% REPLACEMENT PROG. (2500) REPLACED THIS MONTH 57 1 72 27 11 66 44 ? ?? REPLACED THIS YEAR 57 58 1301 157 168 234 278 % OF TOTAL 2% 2% 5% 6% 7% 9% 11.10% 2009 JAN Percent of target 72% REPLACED THIS MONTH REPLACED THIS YEAR OF TOTAL FEB 78% MAR 83% APR 88% MAY 94% JUN 100% ? ?? Program suspended. 53 uN.N1.1Y.111/11,� 31 50 51 rl 5 52 � 10 N 11 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT METER REPLACEMENT PHASES 672 2 _ .. k. . I 37 668 669 670 642 " 35 f 604 8 k .- - - ..,r`' 605 606 6 7 h h 9 607 sob y 40 12 13 14 .. 1 ,.,_... .,_ 610 651 641 17 609 645 653 611 632 4 646 661 630 4111, 612 18 P 19 20 �� 21 22 23 633 ,..p� 614 629 638 647 652 660 Ix1.x1...X1.1 "wF 613 0 634 28 617 656 .... 25.! 26 1 27 615 636 3 648 50 NM 29 30 .�.1 • 32 ��»� 616 33 34 0 2,450 4,900 9,800 Feet 43 702 701 665 0 704 707 714 711 712 a 715 ,. 713 u 716 717 710 Legend /III.III.111 /111.111/ YLWD SERVICE BDRY Lm.nl.ul.m.lf — PHASE 1 = 13,934 COMPLETED PHASE II = 5,691 REPL. / RETRO PHASE II = 1,440 COMPLETED PHASE III = 2,829 REPL. / RETRO 718 ITEM PM PROGRAM 2008/2009 EAST SIDE TO BE COMPLETED BY JUNE 30th 2009 2008 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Percent of target 6% 11% 17% 22% 28% 33% 38% 44% 50% 56% 61% 67% REPLACEMENT PROG. (2500) REPLACED THIS MONTH 571 1 721 271 ill 661 44 ? ?? REPLACED THIS YEAR 571 581 130 1571 1681 2341 278 % OF TOTAL 2% 2% 5% 6% 7% 9% J" 2009 JAN FEB MAR Percent of target 72% 78% 83% APR MAY JUN 88% 94% 100% REPLACED THIS MONTH REPLACED THIS YEAR % OF TOTAL ? ?? Program suspended. • PM PROGRAM ITEM # 2008/2009 Fiscal 2008109 1 JUL I AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN Percent of target 8% 1 17% 25% 33% 42% 50% 58% 67% 75% 83% 92% 100% HYDRANTS (3,765) Target; all hydrants to be serviced annually. INSPECTED THIS MONTH 220 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 220 OF TOTAL VALVES (10,000/2 = 5,000) Target; all valves to be operated every two years OPERATED THIS MONTH 329 OPERATED THIS YEAR 329 % OF TOTAL DEAD ENDS (487x2 =974) Target; all dead ends to be flushed twice each year. FLUSHED THIS MONTH 0 FLUSHED THIS YEAR 0 % OF TOTAL AIR VACS (309) Target; all air /vacs to be serviced annually. INSPECTED THIS MONTH 21 INSPECTED THIS YEAR 21 % OF TOTAL SEWER CLEANING (802,560) Target; all sewers to be cleaned annually. CLEANED THIS MONTH 67,643 CLEANED THIS YEAR 67,643 OF TOTAL SEWER TELEVISING (160,512) Target; all sewers to be televised every 5 years. TELEVISED THIS MONTH 22,584 TELEVISED THIS YEAR 22,584 % OF TOTAL • 0 YLWD SOURCE WATER SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2008-09 GW IMPORT MONTH AF AF Jul-08 1,535.2 1 1,170.0 1 Aug-08 1 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 1 I Dec-08 1 I Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-091 1 Apr-091 1 May-09 1 Jun-09 FYTD I 1,535.2 1 1,170.0 1 Allowable GW (YTD) CUP Obligation FY 2008-09 Monthly CUP Pumping (AF) YTD CUP Pumping (AF) YTD CUP Achieved TOTAL DEMAND AF 2,705.2 I MONTHLY YTD GW GW I % 56.7% 56.7% 1 1,403.7 (AF) 2,166.0 (AF) 131.5 (AF) 131.5 (AF) 6.1% GROUNDWATER PERCENTAGE 0 70.0% 65.0% 60.0% - 55.0% ■ 50.0% 45.0% 40.0% , Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- 08 08 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 Month ITEM NO. 3 BUDGET (Demand Est.) DELTA (AF) 3,005.5 10.0% 2,954.51 2,597.91 2,190.41 1,732.01 1,553.71 1,349.91 1,299.01 1,528.21 1,910.31 2,547.0 1 2,852.6 1 3,005.5 1 -10.0% -s MONTHLY GW -E YTD GW - BPP GOAL 52.0% - CUP ADJ GOAL 60.0% Peo .L T9* NO. 7 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT • 1.1. Project Description 1. Introduction In an effort to incorporate an irrigation water system into its Capital Improvements Program (CIP), the Yorba Linda Water District (District) wishes to investigate the feasibility, both environmentally and economically, of developing an irrigation water system in the Improvement District No. 2, Bryant Ranch (1132), in the City of Yorba Linda. This feasibility study will evaluate replacing the District's existing abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17, at the same site to provide a source of water for nearby irrigation needs. 1.2. Background The project area is located in the City of Yorba Linda in Improvement District No. 2, also known as Bryant Ranch. ID2 is located on the eastern portion of the City of Yorba Linda, north of the Santa Ana River and south of Blue Mud Canyon/Wire Spring Canyon. The area consists of relatively steep hillsides with several housing developments on the southern portions. The site of Wells No. 16 and 17 is located approximately 1000 feet east of River Bank Drive just north of Highway 91, and 2.8 miles east of the intersection of. Yorba Linda Boulevard and Highway 91. Currently, these wells are abandoned and capped. These are shallow wells, approximately 90 to 100-feet deep., and had an operating capacity of around 500 gpm each. However, due to characteristics of the hydrogeology and the zone of interference, the combined well output was 600 to 700 gpm. The existing system also included a 16-inch ductile iron pipeline, approximately 8,310 linear feet, which pumped the well flows to the Elk Mountain Reservoir, where the groundwater was blended with other higher quality water. The 16-inch pipeline alignment runs from the Wells No. 16 and 17 site, west along Brush Canyon Drive, north on Camino de Bryant, and north on Elk Mountain Drive to Elk Mountain Reservoir. The existing 16- inch pipeline is abandoned now. Wells Nos. 16 and 17 were abandoned due to the deterioration of water quality to the point that blending no longer yielded acceptable water quality. Water quality issues include high manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), and total dissolved solids (TDS). The existing Elk Mountain Reservoir is a 6 MG buried reinforced concrete tank. The project area also includes a school and two (2) parks: Bryant Ranch School, Brush Canyon Park and a park located next to Bryant Ranch School on Paseo de Toronto. Figure 1 illustrates an aerial photo of the study vicinity. 11 METCALF&EDDY AECO Page 1 of 12 August 5, 2008 • Figure 1: Aerial Photo of Project Vicinity in the City of Yorba Linda, California 1.3. Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to investigate the feasibility of using the well site, with a new well, as a source of water for nearby irrigation needs. A hydrogeology report entitled "Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study" for the well site was prepared by Richard C. Slade & Associates (RCS) in September 2006. The District intends to drill and equip a new well and utilize the existing and abandoned 16-inch pipeline as a transmission pipeline of irrigation water. A new buried concrete reservoir, with storage of approximately 720,000 gallons, is proposed near the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir to store the irrigation water. Additional irrigation users, such as greenbelts, schools, parks, etc., will be added to the system in phases. Initially, there are 3; implementation phases planned for the irrigation water system as follows: 1. Phase 1 will consist of drilling and equipping a new shallow well, approximately 90-100 feet deep, at the abandoned Well Nos. 16 and 17 site, and connect to the existing 16-inch ductile iron pipeline. The existing pipeline is approximately 8,310 linear feet. Before any design and construction can begin, a pipeline assessment will need to be conducted to determine the condition of the existing pipeline. If the pipeline assessment determines the integrity of the existing pipeline is unable to meet applicable codes and regulations, a new pipeline will need to be considered for the proposed irrigation system, thereby increasing the capital cost. The cost of installing a new 16-inch pipeline, for example, alone can be upwards of METCALF&EDDY AECOM Page 2of12 August 5, 2008 E-rrE YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT ff7rrIN YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT U IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT 0 $1.3 million, not including utility relocations, and demolition of the existing pipeline if another pipeline alignment is unavailable. However, if an assessment proves the existing pipeline worthy, the project shall move forward. Ten (10) irrigation users adjacent to the existing pipeline will be connected to the irrigation system first. These service connections will be fed by the well pump pressure. 2. Phase 2 will consist of installing various 8-inch ductile iron laterals, approximately 2,500 linear feet total, to connect thirteen (13) users that are not immediately adjacent to the existing 16-inch pipeline. A new buried concrete storage reservoir will also be constructed near the Elk Mountain Reservoir for the storage of irrigation water only. This reservoir will begin to feed the now 23 irrigation users by gravity from the reservoir and-or well pump pressure. 3. Phase 3 will consist of designing and installing a new 16=1nch ductile iron pipeline. This new pipeline alignment will connect to the ,existing 16-inch ductile iron 'pipeline near the intersection of Paseo de Toronto and Via Cantada, continue west along Paseo de Toronto, continue south along Via Lomas de Yorba East, turning east along La Palma Avenue, continuing north along Camino de Bryant until it connects to the existing 16-inch ductile iron pipeline to form a loop within the pipeline system. The new pipeline will be used to convey irrigation water to fifteen (15) new users along the new pipeline alignment. At the end of this phase a total of 38 irrigation users will be connected. Figure 2 shows the existing and proposed irrigation system on a GIS map. • METCALF&EDDY':. AECO Page 3 of 12 August 5, 2008 UTr7o YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT U3 IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT //Z Legend ELK MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR IVI EXISTINGWELLS . PROPOSED IRRIGATION WATER RESERVOIR C STUDY IRRIGATION METERS + EXISTING PIPELINE - PHASE 1 PROPOSED PIPELINE - PHASE 2 PROPOSED PIPELINE - PHASE 3 Figure 2: Proposed` Irrigation System on GIS Mao 1.4.. Scope-of-Work This Feasibility Study includes the following tasks: 1. Investigate the feasibility of installing and equipping a 90-100 foot shallow well with a capacity of 500gpm. Evaluate the historic demands by phase and provide demand analysis. 2. Determine the economic feasibility of the proposed irrigation water system. Consider the replenishment cost to the Orange County Water District for pumping well water and system revenue. 3. Provide an order-of-magnitude cost estimate for the construction of the system. 11 M ETCALF & EDDY A ECO Page 4 of 12 August 5, 2008 F7rU YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT 2. Proposed System Evaluation 2.1. Hydrogeologic Evaluation Based on the study 'Water Well Feasibility and Siting Study" by Richard C. Slade & Associates in September 2006, it is "hydrogeologically feasible to locate, drill and construct new wells for YLWD on their property on the north side of the river within Santa Ana Canyon." Furthermore, 'flow rates on the order of 500 gpm appear feasible." The study recommends a variable frequency driven (VFD) pump for higher and/or lower ranges of pumping depending on the season, depth to water, specific well capacity, and overall well efficiency. The hydrogeologic study reported water quality characteristics to be very similar for both abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17, and anticipate similar water quality for the proposed irrigation supply well. The abandoned wells had high total dissolved solids (TDS), and high total hardness (TH). On occasion, the wells produced water with elevated levels in iron, manganese, and turbidity. Therefore, based on the unfavorable water quality, the hydrogeology study recommends that the proposed water supply,well be solely used for irrigation purposes. The study made the following conclusions and recommendations about the proposed irrigation supply well: Table 1: Conclusions and R®commendations for Proposed Irrigation Supply Well (by RCS) Unit -Value/ range Drilled well depth,, maximum Feet 125 Casing depth Feet 100 to 110 Blank cellar casing below bottom of perforations Feet 20 to 30 Casing diameter Inches 16 High strength-low alloy Casing material typa Type (HSLA, aka Corten steel) Super-Flo louvers as by Roscoe Perforations type Type Moss Co. Perforations size Inches 0.060 (60-slot) Cement sanitary seal, minimum depth Feet 20 Pump motor type Type Variable frequency drive (VFD) Water Quality Estimated/ anticipated `total dissolved solids (TDS) mg/L 1000 to 2500 Estimated/ anticipated total hardness (TH) mg/L 700 to 2000 2.2. Demand Evaluation The District has provided customer service meter data for irrigation users for the 5-year period between July 2002 and June 2007. The District proposes that 38 irrigation users will be METCALF&EDDY ,DECO Page 5 of 12 August 5, 2008 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT connected to the new irrigation water system. Tables 2 through 5 show key quantities, systemwide and by phase, respectively, for determining the feasibility of meeting irrigation demands. Table 2: Irrigation Demand by All Proposed System Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data Maximum month .gallons Irrigation demand by combined proposed 11,152,706 system users (38 users) 258.2 GPM Monthly Average Demand by all Combined 6,484,451 Proposed System Users, all Phases 150.1 GPM Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. Table 3: Phase 1 Irrigation Demand by first 10 Users, based-on July 2002-June 20p7 Data Maximum month Maximum month gallons month` Phase 1 Maximum Month Irrigation Demand 4,613,236 A69.2004 106.8 GPM Maximum Single"Us.r 1,438,504 Oct 20Q2 33.3 GPM Average User demand for this Phase. 2601162 6.02 GPM., . Monthly Average Darrtarrd°`aIl users .for this `2, 601, 625 Phase 60.2 GPM Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 247hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. Table 4: Phase 2 Irrigation Demand by additional 13 Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data Maximum rrionth gallons Phase 2 Maximum Month Irrigation Demand 4,025,268 93.2 GPM Maximum Single User 1,190,151 27.5 GPM; Average User demand for this Phase 199,388 4.62 GPM Monthly Average Demand, all users forthis 2,392,657 Phase 55.4 GPM. Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate. 2. Demands are not cumulative, i.e. does not include Phase 1 demands. Maximum month month: Aug-2004 Jan 2007 • • E METCALF&EDDY AECO Page 6 of 12 August 5, 2008 E YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY )DRAFT C • • Table 5: Phase 3 Irrigation Demand by additional 15 Users, based on July 2002-June 2007 Data Phase 3 Maximum Month Irrigation Demand Max irth'urnt'Sino'le User Maximum month month . Sept 2006 Average User demand for this Phase MaXimumµmonth gallons Z66,6'13 65.7 GPM 1,538,743, 35.6 GPM 99,345 2.30 GPM Monthly Average Demand, all users for this 1,490,169 Phase 34.5 GPM Note: 1. GPM was calculated based on 30-day month, 24-hour/day, 60 min/hour average rate, 2. Demands are not cumulative, i.e. does not include Phase 1 and Phase 2 .demands.. The historic data shows that the highest average demand rate for all combined 38, users was 258.2 GPM, significantly below the average capacity of the proposed well output. However, this value cannot account for actual instantaneous peak demand, which can be many factors:higher than the average calculated above. Nevertheless, these peak demands can be mitigated later with proper storage reservoir and pipeline sizing using appropriate peaking factors. For now, the purpose of this analysis is to determine whether there is enough capacity at the proposed well site for the proposed 36 users on an average basis. A 720,000-gallon storage reservoir is proposed, based> on 1 day of well production at 500 GPM. At the 5-year average demand, this volume yields 3.3 days of storage. During maximum month demand, this volume will yield 1.9 days of storage. 2.3. Constructability evaluation The District owns all right-of-ways that are needed to install a new irrigation water system in the ID2 area. This includes rights to land for a new irrigation supply well near abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and `17, land for a proposed 720,000-gallon buried rectangular reinforced concrete reservoir next to the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir, and rights to the new proposed pipeline alignments. See Figure 2 for the aforementioned facility locations. In addition, the District owns the abandoned 16-inch `pipeline, which runs from the abandoned well site to the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir site. Because the pipeline has been abandoned for a number of years, it is recommended that a non-destructive inspection of the entire pipe length be performed to determine that the integrity meets applicable codes for its intended use. However, for purposes of the cost estimate in the next section, it will be assumed that the pipeline will be re-instated for water transmission use and minimal cost will be associated with returning it to service. Anticipated construction will not involve special construction methods. Conventional construction for ductile iron pipeline is anticipated, involving trenching in City of Yorba Linda streets, typically 3 to 5 feet of cover and compaction, and re-paving of the streets. METCALF&EDDY ALCO Page 7 of 12 August 5, 2008 EIYORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT PAVEAENT AND BASE AS REOWRED BY GOVERNING AGENCY\ G' MIN. - TREWN WIDTH TO BE DETERMINED BY GM0111II6 AGENCY SAWCUT TACK 'r e:' °i•:.:ef' /_~.~•_c_~s~y~.4,~%ii~~i:X 'e . ea 1~e 'see °e-s'4~e° • 4 , ••eeaa. - oeo°.O• ees . dri es4e EXCAVATED TRENCH WIDTH _ TRENCH ZONE- SACKFILL AS 95%COMFACTION. DIMTEO 0' a :Y 1 y e OOYERMRIG AGENCY e•'y ~G 6" 1 PIPE:WIOTHE~l • REf.9H3.TIDN 022CD,b- - (MIN.) (mix. e 3,08 _ 3J1 =61 ""Ora" • . PIPE ZONE PIPE ~ e y 90%COMPACTION -SAND ONLY ' S. E. 30 (MIN.) FWMTM NOTED . 'NOTES: Ep 1. ANY IQ(I~Q~f~PEp 9IA ANIBTR~ATBVE CODE TITLE 9, ARTICLE S. SECTION 1539 THRU IS41.q~ 2. TRAFFIC LA1 8 AS OE mia BY GOVEIININB AGENCY. 3. AA DETECTILA~ ~MLARKINS TAPE 9NALLGEUUM PRIOR TO WATERPIPEII,,SIES AG WWUFAC1tlRED 4Y THIOR GHC BDUALITAP~ SIMLL BE PLACED 1-O ASI/tlE PIPELINE LOCAT(OA ION. Figure 3: Standard YLWD water main trench detail Reservoir construction can be either rectangular reinforced or circular pre-stressed concrete, both of which would include internal columns, to allow for complete burial. Currently, the existing Elk Mountain Reservoir is rectangular reinforced: concrete. Construction type would be driven by the District's preference and/or the most cost effective option. ZA Cost Evaluation The `proposed irrigation water supply system would require a condition assessment of the existing pipeline, along with capital costs' of new facilities. The cost for a condition assessment by video surveillance of the existing 8,300-foot pipeline would be on the order of magnitude of $25,000. The system would consist of the following preliminary and simplified list of new facilities: • One irrigation supply well with 500 gpm capacity, up to 125-ft deep; • Two 500 gpm VFD pumps; one duty and one standby; • 720,000-gallon reservoir, size based on 1 day supply at 500-gpm; • 11,300-ft of 16-inch ductile iron pipeline to extend system and to close irrigation loop; 0 METCALF&EDDY AEC Page 8of12 August 5, 2008 YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT • 2,500-ft of 8-inch ductile iron pipeline (diameter assumed for now) for laterals to reach irrigation users not immediately near the abandoned and new loop pipeline; and • 38 new irrigation service connections. Based on the above preliminary list of new facilities, the Ta ble 6 was developed to calculate an "order-of-magnitude" cost est imate by system implementation phase. Table 6: Preliminary Order-0f-Magnitude Cost Estimate item Description Units Qty Unit cost Subtotal Notes PHASE 1 125-ft shallow well ea 1 $350,000 $3501000 500-gpm well pump ea 2 $22,000 $44,000 1 duty + 1 standby Irrigation service connections ea 10 $2,500 $25,000 Subtotal $419,000 Engineering (15%) % 15% $419,000 $62,850 Contingencies (20%) % 20% $419,000 $83,800 Condition Assessment LS 1 $50,000 $50,000 PHASE 1 TOTAL $615,650 PHASE 2 720,000-gal buried reinforced concrete rectangle reservoir ea 1 $1,080,000 $1,080,000` r Additional service laterals, assume 8-in DIP If 2,500 $8a $200,000 Irrigation service connections ea 13 $2,500 $32,500 Subtotal $1,312,500 Engineering (15%0) % 15% $1,312,500 $196,875 Contingencies (20%) % 20% $1,312,500 $262,500 PHASE 2-TOTAL $1,771,875 PHASE 3 16-inch DIP, to complete loop If 11,300 $160 Irrigation service connections ea 15 $2,500 Subtotal Engineering (15%) % Contingencies (20%) % PHASE 3 TOTAL 15% $1,845,500 20% $1,845,500 $1,808,000 $37,500 $1,845,500 $276,825 $369,100 $2,491,425 TOTAL $4,878,950 2.4.1. Life Cycle Cost Comparison Installed, Unit Cost based on historic project costs A life cycle cost was developed for the irrigation feasibility study which includes the capital cost of a new irrigation system and associated facilities, the cost to replace those facilities at the end METCALF&EDDY AEC®I Page 9 of 12 August 5, 2008 ff-rrS YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT ` IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT of the analysis period, the replenishment cost of pumping groundwater, and interest paid on the capital cost. For simplification of this feasibility study, the phases were assumed to be implemented within the first year. However, realistically the phase-implementation would be staggered over the course of a few years if it was decided to proceed with each respective phase. This cost was compared to the cost of buying water from Metropolitan Water District (MWD). The analysis cycle period was selected at 25 years, and all costs were calculated with the future value function given present values and estimated escalation and interest rates. The replacement cost of each facility component was calculated based on the fraction of the cycle period to the estimated life span. For example, the cost of replacing a facility with the an estimated life span of 50 years was calculated to be half of the future value at 25 years given today's capital cost and the annual inflation rate. The life cycle cost of MWD water was base on the current rate per acre-foot, and an average historical escalation rate based on yearly rates from calendar year 2003 through 2009. Table 7 tabulates the life cycle costs for each option. Table 7: Life Cycle Costs and Comparison - Irrigation System and MWD Water LIFE CYCLE COST FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM BY PHASE Const. incl. Eng. & Est. life span in Replacement cost at CAPITAL AND REPLACEMENT COSTS Contingent years end of 25 years Phase 1 125-ft shallow well $472,500 50 $629,804 500-gpm well pump $59,400 25 $158,351 Irrigation service connections $33,750 25 $89,972 Condition Assessment $50,000 Subtotal $615,650 $878,126 Phase 2 720,000-gal buried reinforced concrete rest reservoir $1,458,000 75 $1,295,596 Additional service laterals, assume 8-in DIP $270,000 50 $359,888 Irrigation service connections' $43,875 25 $116,964 Subtotal $1,771,875 $1,772,448 Phase 3 16-inch DIP, to complete loop $2,440,800 50 $3,253,387 Irrigation service connections $50,625 25 $134,958 Subtotal $2,491,425 $3,388,345 Total Capital and Replacement Costs $4,878,950 $6,038,919 INTEREST PAID ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT (BOND) Interest Paid Phase 1 $22,574 Phase 2 $64,969 Phase 3 $91,352 Total Interest paid $178,895 METCALF&EDDY AECM Page 10 of 12 August 5, 2008 VMS YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY DRAFT Table 7: Lif C l C t d C i I i e yc e os s an ompar son - rr ga tion System and MWD Water REPLENISHMENT COSTS OCWD replenishment cost per ac/ft incl. YLWD cost of pumping $350 Phase 1 Cost to replenish per year, 2008/09 $33,533 Phase 2 Cost to replenish per year, 2008/09 $30,840 Phase 3 Cost to replenish per year, 2008/09 $19,207 Total Cost of all phases to replenish per year $83,580 TOTAL CYCLE COSTS BY ADDITIONAL PHASE Phase 1 Cycle Cost Phase 1 + Phase 2 Cycle Cost Total Cycle Cost for Irrigation System, All Phases LIFE CYCLE COST FOR PURCHASING MWD WATER FV value of replenishment $1,396,518 $1,284,347 $799,904 $3,480,769 $2,912,869 $7,806,507 $14,577,533 FV of purchasing MWD water at end MWD cost per ac-ft of raw water $603.5 of life cycle period Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 1 demands $57,821 $3,657,106 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 2 delrlands -$53,176 $3,363,359 Cost to purchase MWD water per year, 2008, Phase 3 demands . $33,119 $2,094,732 Total Cycle Cost for MWD Water for all Phases $144,116 $9,115,196 LIFE CYCLE COST DATA ASSUMPTIONS Life cycle analysis period Replenish cost escalation per year 25 4.00/6 MWD water escalation per year 7.0% Interest rate 6.00/6 Inflation rate 4.0% Bond rate 4.0% Bond period, years 15 Implement Purchase MWD CYCLE COST 9Y PHASE. IMPLEMENTATION Irrigation System Water Cycle Cost with Phase 1 Demands $2,910,000 $3,660,000 Cycle Cost with Phase 1 +phase 2' Demands $7,810,000 $7,020,000 Cycle C6stwith all Phases Demands $14,580,000 $9,120,000 Notes 1. MWD escalation based on 2003 through 2009 costs (from MWp website) 2. MWD cost of treated water, tier 1, $528.501ac-ft up to Dec. 31, 2008. $603.50/ac-ft starting Jan 1, 2009 from YLWD 3.OCWD replenishment cost from YLWD. Escalation roughly based on last two years! $237/ac-ft in 2007/08, $249 in 2008109. 4. Replenishment cost of $350/ac-ft based on OCWD cost of $249/ac-ft and estimated YLWD cost associated with well and pumping operation. 5. Replacement cost is based on fraction of cycle period divided by estimated life span of respective facility. 6. Interest on capital cost based on 15 year bond at 4% interest The results indicate that the cost of implementing Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed irrigation system after 25-year period are comparable to that of purchasing water from MWD. However, as the third phase is implemented, the cost of the proposed irrigation system increases significantly compared to that of purchasing MWD water over the course of 25 years, and based on the life-cycle assumptions. M ETCALF & EDDY A ECO Page 11 of 12 1 August 5, 2008 E YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT IRRIGATION FEASIBILITY STUDY )DRAFT 3. Conclusions Based on the available data and hydrogeologic study, it is economically and hydrogeologically feasible to design and construct a new irrigation supply system in the ID2 zone of the District. The hydrogeologic study by RCS concludes that water is available for irrigation purposes from the existing abandoned Wells Nos. 16 and 17 sites at 500 GPM. The demand evaluation concludes that the maximum month irrigation water demands for the proposed 38 irrigation meters of approximately 258 GPM is within the supply quantities. However, this demand does not account for instantaneous peak demands. Nevertheless, these peak demands can be mitigated by proper storage and transmission pipeline design. For purposes of this feasibility study and cost estimating, one day well output was suggested for the storage volume. A preliminary "order-of-magnitude" cost estimate resulted in a constructed cost of $4.9 million. In addition, an irrigation system would save the cost of purchasing potable water. that can otherwise be used for drinking, other domestic and industrial needs. The volume of water that would be saved from the domestic water system is described in Table 8. The table also shows the average cost per year per ac-ft of water for implementing each phase compared to the cost of purchasing MWD water. Table 8: Average Cost of Irrigation System by Phase compared to MWD Water over 25-yr life cycle Phase Volume of Water Average Irrigation Cost Average MWD-Cost per per year per aft year per ac ft (ac-ft/year) ($/ac-ftlyear) ($/ac-ftlyear) 1 95.81 $1,081 $1,528 1 & 2 183.92 $1,564 $1,527 1, 2, & 3 238.80 $2,308 $1,528 Notes 1. Demands are based on 5-year average provided by YLWD, July 2002 to June 2007. Similar to the life cycle cost trend in the previous section, the cost per ac-ft of water is comparable to purchasing MWD water if the first and second phases are implemented. However, the cost increases significantly as the third phase is implemented, but will depend on the actual increase in the MWD rate. Based on the analyses presented in this study, the implementation of the District's phased approach to irrigation water is recommended on the basis that the District will be self-sufficient for the irrigation demand, and the importation of MWD water is reduced by the same amount. Also, the future allocation of MWD water may not be as robust as it has been in the past because of overall water shortages. Therefore it makes sense for the District to have "irrigation water" separately in its portfolio. Therefore, the District should consider further a more detailed study for implementing this phased approach. • M ETCALF & EDDY ECO M Page 12 of 12 August 5, 2008 f~ 0 • • MEETING AGENDA Between the City of Yorba Linda and the Yorba Linda Water District Date: July 31, 2008 Location: City Hall, Casa Loma Avenue Attendees: For the City: David Gruchow, Asst. City Manager Mark Stowell, Public Works Director/City Engineer For the District: Mike Payne, General Manager Ken Vecchiarelli, Asst. G.M. Stacy Bavol, Customer Service Supervisor Discussion Items: 1. YLWD's Public Information Campaign 2. Water Demand Management Action Levels a. Water Conservation Measures b. Call for Voluntary 10% Reduction c. Need for Mandatory Reductions/Implementation Plan 3. Expected Costs Increases on the Horizon 4. Hidden Hills Area Irrigation Meters 5. Non-Potable Irrigation Opportunities 6. City's Water Audit Participation with MWDOC 7. Other -ral ;-e (;1711 COU.,AIC-iL. ©A/ ~EPJa j9r'''°