HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-05; Municipal Water District; Resolution 493RESOLUTION NO. 493
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ADOPTING A MASTER PLAN AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FINANCING, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF WATER FACILITIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT has identi- fied the major facilities which will be needed to meet the ulti- mate demands on the water system based upon anticipated land use development: and
WHEREAS, adoption of a master plan to guide the District in development of its water system according to actual land use is desirable: and
WHEREAS, a master plan for design of the public water system has been developed by Woodside, Kubota and Associates, as con- sulting engineers: and
WHEREAS, such "Master Plan of Public Water System" shows anticipated facility sizing and location based on anticipated and
area master plans: and - actual land use development, based upon previously adopted sub- 1
WHEREAS, the staff of the District has prepared a Capital !
Improvement Plan which provides a conceptual plan for financing
needed capital improvements through its major facilities charge,
water sales and other revenue sources: and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan incorporating the
technical information developed in said master plan includes
additional technical analyses by the District Engineer: and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan outlines the financial
impacts of the master planned facilities construction program:
and
WHEREAS, the Capital Improvement Plan and master plan design have been reviewed in draft form by the Board of Directors of the
District and the general public, including review at a public hearing on November 21, 1985 to review the major facilities
charge: and
WHEREAS, these master planning efforts have been developed with input from the City of Carlsbad in accordance with the 1983 Water Service Agreement:
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of 1 the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT:
-1-
1. After careful review and due consideration of the plans presented to the Board of Directors of the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, the Board of Directors finds and determines that:
a. The Capital Improvement Plan, including the
planned phasing program and system map, attached hereto as
Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, are hereby adopted.
b. The Master Plan of Public Water System, as modi- fied by the capital improvement plan report, is hereby adopted in the form of attached Exhibit "C."
2. The Board of Directors finds and determines that the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT has prepared and adopted
these master plan documents in compliance with and satisfaction
of the relevant provisions of the 1983 Water Service Agreement with the City of Carlsbad.
3. All future developments of the public water system throughout the District shall be guided by the adopted master planning documents until such time as they may be revised or amended by action of the Board of Directors of the COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
7 4. Resolution Nos. 342, 369, 408, 419 and 436 are hereby superseded and are of no further force or effect.
ADOPTED, SIGNED AND APPROVED this 5thday of February, 1986.
Board (o& Directors COSTA AL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
COSTA REAL MUN$C,~PAL WATER DISTRICT
P (DEA2:GMCOST.R)
-2-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 1 1 ss
I, FRED W. MAERKLE, Secretary of COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT and of the Board of Directors thereof, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Board of Directors of said District at a regular meeting of
the Board held on the 5th day of February 1986, and that it was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES : Directors: Almack, Haasl, Kelly, Maerkle
and Bonas
NOES : Directors: None
ABSENT : Directors: None
Fred W. Maerkle,/S/ecretary of
COSTA REAL MUNT~~AL WATER DISTRICT
and the Board of Directors thereof
Ehhibit A
Costa Real Municipal Water District
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
February 5, 1986
Prepared by
Wi 11 i am C. Meadows, General Manager
Geoffrey A. Poole, Administrative Analyst
I.
11.
111.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
c
IX.
IX.
TABLE _. OF CONTENTS
Summary
Introduction
Growth Forecast and Land Use
Water Demands
Project Phasing and Estimated Costs
Funding
Financing
Conclusions
Partial List of Sources Consulted
Appendixes
Page
1
3
6
11
15
18
23
31
32
35
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure # Paqe Title
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
5
7
8
9
10
14
CRMWD Serice Area
SANDAG and City of Carlsbad
Population Projections
SANDAG regional forecast for
CRMWD
CRMWD Land Use Comparison for the Years 1980 and 2000
San Diego County Water Authority population projections for its member agencies
CRMWD water sales projections
LIST OF TABLES
Table # Paqe Title
1. 6 Land Use Projections
2. 11 Average Day Water Demand
3. 12
4. 12
Minimum Fire Flow Requirements
Required Fire Flow Durations
5. 13 Total Water Demand
6. 16
7. 17
8. 21
Master List of Proposed Projects,
Cost Estimates and Allocations
Master List of Proposed Projects
and Cost Estimates per Phase
City of Carlsbad Contributions for Enhancement Projects
9. 24 Security Pledged to COP Financing
LIST OF APENDIXES
P
Appendix Title
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Computerized Spreadsheet Represent- ing Financial Projections Through Phase I Using the Fee at Time of Previous Draft ($880 per EDU)
Graphic Representation of Appendix A.
Computerized Spreadsheet Represent-
ing Financial Projections Through Phase I Using the Adopted Fee
Effective Jan.'86 ($1590 per EDU)
Graphic Representation of Appendix
C.
Capital Improvement Plan Map
SUMMARY
Costa Real Municipal Water District must provide
facilities to accommodate rapid urbanization in
Carlsbad. The Capital Improvement Plan identifies projects that will satisfy the future demands on the water system. The projects identified in this report
fall into two main categories:
1. Construction of new facilities and enlargement
of existing ones to accommodate the increase in demand
from new development. Costs of new or enlarged reser- voirs, increased pipeline capacities and other projects
necessary for their operation can be attributed to new development.
2. Replacement and rehabilitation of facilities
that have depreciatied by operation of the system. The cost of improving facilities currently in use is the
responsibility of the consumers,
In addition to the projects shown in this plan, developers must contribute facilities which are built privately, according to District specifications, and
which serve new development. These facilities have a
special benefit to those developments. This report
identifies the major facilities to be undertaken by the
District. Together, the developer-contributed
facilities and the District-built facilities will constitute the complete water system.
In order to allocate the cost of District projects equitably between developers and water users, the benefits to be provided by the proposed projects have been analyzed. This report identifies total improve- ments costing $41,750,000 (current value) to buildout. The respective a1 location between new development and
water users is:
New Development $24,510,000 Water Users $17,240,000
The major facilities charge (MFC), a connection fee paid by new development, has been set at $1,590 per equivalent dwelling unit to be phased in during 1986. The amount of this fee was determined by analysis of revenue required to finance the proportionate cost of projects the District must undertake to accommodate new development in the immediate future- Additional adjustments in the MFC might be recommended as the exact project costs of construction and financing are
determined through implementation of this plan.
2
A water rate surcharge of $0.10 per 100 cubic feet
($43.56 per acre foot) would complement the increased major facilities charge in accordance with the propor- tionate share of benefit to water users, and allow the
District to undertake the immediate projects. However, the Water Service Agreement between the District and the City of Carlsbad provides for the transfer of substantial funds for water system improvement, and
this report recommends settling pending issues with the
City before considering a specific water rate
surcharge. The use of City reserves could signifcantly reduce the amount of a water rate surcharge. It is also
recommended that no work on the village area rehabilitation program, adopted by the City prior to the Water Service Agreement, be undertaken until the matter of fund transfers is addressed.
This plan is dependent on City planning. City Council decisions, which determine land use and the rate of urbanization, affect water system requirements.
Hence, this plan was designed to adapt to changing
circumstances. After preparation of the final draft of
this report, the City Council adopted an urgency
ordinance establishing a six month abeyance in
development plan approval, during which time a development management system is to be prepared. It is recommended that this report be amended as needed when the City's new program is completed. The District has the resources and flexibility to implement its pollicy. Doing so will assure existing and future residents the water system is in place to serve their needs.
P 3
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is to identify the major water facilities that must be provided by the District to serve anticipated demands at buildout; to consider appropriate financial methods; and to describe policies which would carry out the plan. The CIP recognizes the need to build new facili- ties and replace existing ones to ensure an adequate
future water supply for CRMWD's area. The portion of
Carlsbad served by CRMWD is shown on Figure 1.
In addition to the practical need, the CIP is
required by the Water Service Agreement between CRMWD and the City of Carlsbad, entered into in 1983. Re-
garding capital improvements, the agreement provides:
Per Agreement
1. The District will be responsible for the plan- ning, financing and construction of all major capital
facilities to provide potable water service within the District.
2. The District will coordinate the capital im- provement program with the City.
3. The District, with input from the City, will
adopt a master plan of facilities.
4. The City will contribute the proceeds from the
sale or lease of Lake Calavera, together with any undesignated reserves in the City's water utility fund,
to the District's capital development fund.
Policies
This report is based on the following policies:
1. New development will pay for facilities not
needed to serve existing water users. Payment will be by : A. Contributing facilities providing specific benefits to new developments, such as in- tract pipelines
B. Paying major facilities charges to fund
projects of District-wide benefit, the need for which is required by new development
.
4
2. Existing water users will pay for the replace-
ment or improvement of facilities they have used, the need for which has not been created by new development.
Methodology
The CIP is based on information from a variety of sources. The draft report entitled "Master Plan of Public Water System Facilities" prepared for CRMWD by Woodside/Kubota and Associates updates information on the capital requirements of the District. Other subarea master plans adopted by the District in the past have the same function, and have been used as a guide for the preparation of the CIP. Additional engineering
analysis was provided by the District's staff. The
consultants' report itself is based on input from the City of Carlsbad and other sources.
Population and land use data were initially
gathered from the report prepared by the San Diego
County Association of Governments (SANDAG). The City of
Carlsbad subsequently released its revised Public Facilities Management System Monitoring Report which
includes population projections. Both the SANDAG and
City projections are presented in this report. AS
changes occur in projected land use and population
increase, the CIP can be modified. Periodic review of
any master plan is needed to keep pace with actual events.
Financial analysis by CRMWD's staff was based on
the consideration of various financial methods and
current policies of the District. Long-term revenue
and expense projections were developed with the aid
of computerized spreadsheets that represent CRMWD's
existing and potential revenue sources, and based on growth and water sales projections which are explained
in the appropriate sections that follow.
5
Figure 1
Pacific
Ocean
0-0- BOUNDARY - CITY OF
CARLSBAO OUTSIOI La yy; SAN SIARCOS CWD 01 STRICT SERVICE
AREA - BOUNOARY- CO STA REAL b$$q 0 LlVENHAIN bWO MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT
6
GROWTH FORECAST AND - LAND USE -
Table 1-Costa Real Municipal Water District Land Use Projections
CRMWD is San Diego County's fastest growing water
agency in terms of assessed valuation, and is on the forefront of an urban expansion that will nearly double its population in the next ten years. Population within the District may reach nearly 47,000 by the year 1990, an increase of 17,000 in that ten year span. Develop- ment occuring within the District is projected to increase the developed land by 151% over the next 15 years. Figures 2-5 are graphic representations of these projections, made by SANDAG and the San Diego County Water Authority, that were considered in the engineering of the CIP projects.
Growth Forecasts
There is a potential for significant descrepencies
between 20 year growth forecasts and actual growth rates. Therefore, implementation of the CIP requires a more detailed analysis into the projects that are of an immediate concern. These projects will supply the current users as well as new developments that are currently planned or expected to occur in the near future. The remaining projects are components of the water system that will supply a buildout population. The actual growth.trends will determine the date, pre-
cise location and actual sizing of those projects.
Land Use
Land use analysis aids in the determination of gross water demand on the transmission system. The
figures in Table 1 were used in the Woodside/Kubota
report to determine anticipated sizing and location of the facilities. In addition to actual growth trends, actual development in accordance with the City land use
plan will determine precise sizing and location of
future facilities.
Residential 14,000 acres
Agricultural 1,500 acres
Industrial 2,500 acres Commercial 1,000 acres Recreational 1,000 acres
Total 20,000 acres
Figure 2
c
Q
(3 Q
@ @ 0 s
h
8
Figure 3
P
0 3 L.
I-
O
c
U
2
3
0
I
w
0
3
0
I
a
W
c1
n
a
0
0
0 .-
.-
z
0
M
c
C
-I
3
0
0
0
IIYI
oono E
0 0 0 cv
ri 0 P
--
e 9 Ei
--
.I-----.
YIII
ri m 5
cs UL vIQ
35 r'l
r(
@- a0 U 011
-I- C 0. L Y E* OL 0 ww ac *3 00 an
mu -u
WL YU 4J* C- aw r uc LO E s g: -u Y 0u
6'0 OE e- C" -0 I- r(a -a am
.. u &a 0 Z
( 1980) LANDUSE ACREAGES 9
Residentia I (3,152 ac.1- 16%
Nonrcsidentlal (1,620ac.I- 8%
( 246ac.I- I V0 Fro ew ay
(S,O 18 ac.) - 25 VO
25 ?fa
Total
I O/O
I6 % RES1 DENT I A L
' 8%
57 vo DEVELOPABLE - FREEWAY T \
\\
Figure 4
DEVELOP E D
UNDEVELOPED
Developable (11,372ac.)- 57%
Not Useable (3,567ac.I- I6 O/O
18 O/O \
\,NOT USEABLE
\ \
Total ( l4,93 9 ac.1- 75 V0
TOTAL ACREAGE (19,957ac. 1
(2000)
/
DEVELOPED a 63% Residential
Nonresidential
Freeway
Total
I O/O
FREEWAY
UNDEVELOPED
Developable
Not Useable
Total
TOTAL ACREAG
RESIDENTIAL
/ NONRESIDENTIAL
/----
0 EVE LO PA B LE E
( 9,266a~.1-47~k
( 3,063ac.1-15 O/
( 246ac.k I3
(12,575 ac. 1-63?
( 3,815 ac. I- 19"/
( 3,567ac.)-I8?
(19,957ac. 1
," -
10
Growth Rate in Percent from 1980-2000
San Diego County Water Authority Agencies
Figure 5
1 61.8 I I I I 187.4 I I 13.7 1 I- I
I I
Bueno Coloracio M.W.D.
Costa Real M.W.D.
Del Mar, City of i 1i.i De Luz Heights M.W.D. I I I 35.2 I
Escondido, City of I I I 39.9 I
Fallbrook P.U.D. I I I 8.91 Eelix W-D. 111- I 12.0 1
National City, City of I - I 64.0 OCaZIZSide, City of I I I 29.6 1 Oliverrhain M.W.D. I I I 61-5 I
I
I
.- .- Otay M.W.D.
Padre Dam M.W,D-
Pendleton Mil. Res,
Poway, r;ty of
Rainbow M.W.D.
Ramona M.W.D.
Rincon del Diablo M.W.D.
San Diego, City of
San Dieguito W.D.
San Harcos C.W.D.
Santa Fe I.D.
Souch Bay 1.n.
Valley Center M.W.D.
Yuima M.w,n.
San Diego Regive'
1 I I 71.4 1 I I I 1-5.5 1-1-
I I I I 51-5 I I 1 I 211.8 I I 31.6 1 I 1- I 42.7 I I I
1 I I= I 139.8
1 I
1 I 82-7 I I I 23-0 1 I I I 130.8 I I I I 50.2 1 I I I 45-4 I
I 170.0
I I
11
WATER DEMANDS
Average Day Demand
Approximately 530 water meter records from the
City of Carlsbad and CRMWD were reviewed for the period
July, 1979, through June, 1982. The residential meter records were converted to gallons per day per dwelling unit and compared with the number of dwelling units per gross acre (including streets). The result was an indication of average day demands based on the number of dwelling units per gross acre at buildout. Usage is
shown in gallons per day per acre (gpdpa). The water flow calculations for all catagories of use were deter- mined as follows:
Table 2-Costa Real Municipal Water District Average Day Water Demand
Water Demand Land Use Gal. Per Day Per Acre Agricultural 2,500 gpdpa Industrial Commercia 1
Auto Retail Regional Retail Res taurant s
Motels
Elementary
Junior High High School
Schools
Freeway Landscape
3,000 gpdpa
980 gpdpa 840 gpdpa
2,910 gpdpa
3,360 gpdpa
1,840 gpdpa 2,215 gpdpa 2,190 gpdpa 2,900 gpd/1000'
Peak Demand (Fire Flow)
The City of Carlsbad Fire Department's recommenda-
tions for minimum fire flow requirements were used to determine peak demands. Minimum flow and required
duration were used to determine overall fire flow demands. The required flows are shown on the following
Page
i
12
t
Table 3-Costa Real Municipal Water District
Minimum Fire Flow. Requirements
Land Use Gallons per Minute R.L.-- Low Density 1500-1750
R.L.M.-- Low Medik Density
R.M.-- Medium Density
R.M.H.-- Medium High Density
R.H.-- High Density
N.-- Neighborhood Commercial C.-- Community Commercial PI -- Industrial
E,J,H,HC,P -- Schools
RRI -- Intensive Regional Retail
1750
2500
3500
3500
3000-4000
3000-4000
3000-4000
3000
6000
Required Fire Flow Duration
Sizing and location of future facilities have been determined per fire flow volume requirements for the following durations:
Table 4-Costa Real Municipal Water District Reqiured Fire Flow Durations
Required Fire Flow (GPM)
10,000 and greater
9,500 9,000
8,500
8,000
7,000
6,500
6,000
5,500
5,000
4,500 4,000 3,500
3,000 2,500 and less
7 500
Duration (Hrs)
10
9 9
8
8
7
7
6
6 5
5
4 4
3
3
2
13
Total Water Demand
The projects that are proposed in the CIP are
designed to satisfy the requirements of the District at buildout population of an estimated 109,000. The total water demands of buildout population have been calculated and used as design parameters for future
projects. The District's current pipeline capacity from
the aqueduct system of the San Diego County Water
Authority (SDCWA) is 58 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Projected annual total water demand within the District, shown in Figure 6, is based on the assumptions that (1) anticipated population increases
will occur as projected by SANDAG, and (2) the per capita demand of both existing and future populations
for urban water will remain at -221 acre feet (197
gallons per capita per day). These calculations have
been made for CRMWD by the San Diego County Water Authority. Total water demand on the CRMWD system at
buildout will produce a total capacity requirement of 93 cfs from the SDCWA aqueduct system into the
District's distribution system. Therefore, pipeline and reservoir capacities of the CIP projects are designed to meet these future needs. The data in Figure 6 are summarized as follows:
Table 5-Costa Real Municipal Water District
Total Water Demand
Projected Water Use (Acre Feet)
Estimated Year Population Urban Aqric. Total
1990 59,000 13,100 3,600 16,700
1995 74,000 16,300 3,600 19.900 2000 87,000 19,200 3,600 22,800
14
Figure 6
7
0
Qz Lu I-
9 Lu I- o Lu 3 0 be 4
P
PROJECT PHASING AND ESTIMATED COSTS
Improvements have been planned to adequately serve
the Disrict at buildout. Multi-year increments are used, from which the overall plan may be divided into yearly segments, or annual budgets. This process allows the District to plan for the long term while
preserving the flexibility to adapt to actual circumstances on a short term basis. The three plan-
ning phases are: 1985-1990, 1991-2000, 2001-buildout.
No year for buildout has been established by the City of Carlsbad, although it is assumed to occur after the year 2005 for water system planning purposes.
Although the consulting engineers list the La Costa Hi, Tri-Agencies Terminal and Santa Fe I1 reser-
voirs within Phase I of their report, this report has deleted them since they are already financed and under construction. The nature and total cost estimate of
the Squires Reservoir project has been changed. Originally planned as two projects, it is now conceived as a 20 million gallon reservoir which would double as
additional storage (a benefit to future development)
and replacement storage (a benefit to existing resi-
dents). Adjusting the engineer's report to show future
financial requirements only, by changing the nature of
the Squires Reservoir project ($800,000 less) and by deleting participation in Olivenhain Municipal Water
District's Mount Israel Reservoir ($1,000,000) gives a
grand total of $41,750,000 for the CIP.
Projects listed in the CIP are those that are to be financed, designed, and constructed by CRMWD. In- tract pro jects, those that benefit specific developments, are the responsibility of the developers to finance and construct. Hence, they are not described in the CIP. The project list on page 16 (Table 6)
identifies all CIP projects, cost estimates and allocation of the costs between new development (MFC) and water users. A further breakdown of the projects into their respective phases follows on page 17
(Table 7).
c
16
7 Table 6-Costa Real Municipal Water District
Master List of Proposed Projects, Cost Estimates and Allocations
1986-2005
KFC-Quaiifying- Enhancement- Project (Phase 1 (New Development) (Water Users) Total 1985$
Squires Reservoir (1) 5,600,000 4,400,000 10,000,000
EGans Point Reservoir (1) 700,000 500,000
TAP Chloramination Sta. (1) 112,000 88,000
Telemetry/Control (1) 98,000 77,000 Village Rehabilitation (1) 1,350,000 "D" Reservoir Expansion (1) 3,000,000
Santa Fe I11 (2) 4,500,000
San Luis Rey Well Field (2) 1,500,000
Replace/Enlarge PAR (2) 640,000 452,000 Point I'Dtt Cogeneration (2) 600,000
Squires I Cogeneration (2) 600,000
Telemetry/Control (2) 462,000 363,000 "D" Reservoir Expansion (3) 4,000,000 Replace/Enlarge ECR Line (3) 2,189,000 1,411,000
Replace/Enlarge PAR Line (3) 1,450,000 1,558,000
7 Replce/Enlrg Squires Line (3) 879,000 621,000
Village Rehabilitation (2) 2,000,000
Agua Hedionda Basin (3) 1,000,000
Telemetry/Control (3) 280,000 220,000
La Costa I1 Reservoir (3) 600,000
Village Rehabilitation (3) 500,000
1,200,000
200,000
175,000 1,350,000 3,000,000
4,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,092,000 600,000
600,000 825,000 4,000,000 3,600,000
3,008,000 1,500,000
1,000,000 600,000
500,000 500,000
Grand Total All Phases 24,510,000 17,240,000 41,750,000
Totals per Phase
MFC-Qualifying- Enhancement-
Phase (New Development) (Water Users) Total 1985$
1- (1986-1990 projects ) 9,510,000 6,415,000 15,959,000
2- (1991-2000 projects 1 5,602,000 5,515,000 11,117,000
3- (after 2000 projects) 9,398,000 5,310,000 14,708,000
All Phases 24,510,000 17,240,000 41,750,000
17
Table 7-Costa Real Municipal Water District
Proposed Projects and Cost Estimates
by Phase
PHASE I (1985-1990) -
Project 1985 Cost Squires Reservoir 10,000,000 Evans Point Reservoir 1,200,000 TAP Chloramination Station 200,000 Telemetry-Control System 175,000 Village Area Rehabilitation 1,350,000
"D" Reservoir Expansion (8 MG) 3,000,000
Subtotal $15,925,000
PHASE - I1 (1991-2000)
Project 1985 Cost
Santa Fe I11 (9 MG) 4,500,000
San Luis Rey Well Field Rehab. 1,500,000 Replace/Enlarge PAR Line (1st Stage) 1,092,000 Point "D" Cogeneration Sta. 600,000 Squires I Cogeneration Sta. 600,000 Telemetry-Control System 825,000
Village Area Rehabilitation 2,000,000
Subtotal: $11,117,000
PHASE - I11 (after 2000)
Project 1985 Cost
I'D" Reservoir Expansion- 2nd Stage 4,000,000 Replace/Enlarge ECR Line (36" 1 3,600,000 Replace/Enlarge PAR line (39") 3,008,000 Replace Squires Dam Line 1,500,000
La Costa I1 Reservoir (1.5 MG) 600,000 Village Area Rehabilitation 500,000 Telemetry-Control System 500,000
Agua Hedionda Basin Rehab. 1,000,000
Subtotal $14,708,000
GRAND TOTAL ALL PHASES $41,750,000
18 FUNDING
In 1984, the District financed three reservoirs
with certificates of participation. The "f ull faith
and credit" of the District was pledged as security,
meaning revenues from major facilities charges, water
sales, property taxes, interest earnings and other
available sources be used for funding as necessary. There are many options that might be cost effective at the time of financing the Phase I projects. The key
question to answer when the projects are undertaken is
"who pays?". The certificate of participation program was designed to spread costs among the project
beneficiaries. This policy is addressed by this report, which has allocated costs proportionately, subject to modification as the District proceeds with the actual work leading to construction.
The various projects in the CIP will benefit both existing and future water users. Table 6, page 16, shows the complete list of projects and the allocation
of responsibilities between developers and water users. The cost allocation represented in Table 6 results from the analysis of individual projects to determined the respective benefits for new development and water
users. A 56% to 44% benefit ratio between new development and water users was determined by analysis
of the relationships between replacement cost, due to existing demands, and enlargement cost, due to future
demands, of pipeline and reservoir improvements. Phase
I projects where this cost-benefit ratio applies are
Squires Reservoir, TAP chloramination station, and
telemetry/control system improvements. In other cases,
projects will benefit new development exclusively (e.g. 'ID" Reservoir Expansion) or water users exclusively (e.g. Village Area Rehabilitation) and are cost- al located accordingly.
The revenue generated by the Major Facilities
Charge which is paid by new development will finance the portion of Phase I projects that benefit new development (Table 6). Adequate revenue must also be generated to finance the enhancement project list
(Table 6). These revenues will either be generated through funds from the City that are to be transferred
to the District for this purpose or through a capital
surcharge, an increase on the water rate. Descriptions
of these revenue alternatives follow.
19
Major Facilities Charge
A discussion of specific funding sources can begin
with the major facilities charge, which is a connection charge levied against new development. The MFC was
established as part of the 1984 certificate of
participation program which financed three reservoirs
currently under construction. This charge is assessed
against equivalent dwelling units at the time the City
issues building permits. Based on information which indicated the need to proceed with projects of an
immediate concern, the MFC has been set at $1,590 per EDU to be phased in during 1986. This will enable the District to proceed with the immediate projects while the long term capital plan is being finalized.
c
c
To calculate the amount of the charge, growth estimates for CRMWD service area were analyzed to determine the potential revenue from the MFC. In 1984
approximately 2,000 EDUs were added to the CRMWD
system. The City's latest population projections show
a rate of approximately 1,100 EDUs per year for CRMWD's area. Therefore, 1,000 EDUs was judged to be a realistic number which should generate an adequate revenue stream to meet fixed debt service for projects that benefit new development.
During the review of an earlier draft of this report, a question was raised regarding determination of a charge to support ultimate MFC requirements. An
average annual debt service for the entire project list was calculated,and ityieldeda MFCof over $5,000 per EDU for MFC qualifying projects. There are several problems with this approach.
This method would make changes in the project list
and estimated costs extremly difficult, if not
virtually impossible to justify. One must question the
accuracy of population projections that go for some twenty years into the future. Variations in the actual population growth or more detailed studies into the Phase I1 and I11 projects could possibly eliminate or
substantially alter some projects. Therefore, such a
charge could be exhorbitant and overly speculative. The shorter the planning period relied upon to set rates, the more accurate the forecasting will be. Required financing for Phase I MFC-qualifying projects was
thereby used in considering the major facilities charge.
20
Capital: Surcharge
During design of the certificate of participation
program, the District considered a capital surcharge on the water rate. This wasn't done, although pledging the "full faith and credit" of the District acknow-
ledged the availability of a surcharge if needed for payments.
A capital surcharge on the water rate of $0.10
per 100 cubic feet ($43.56 per acre foot) would fund the Phase I enhancement project list. However, no
surcharge is recommended at this time because the District is due (pursuant to the Water Service
Agreement of 1983) to receive undesignated reserves
from the City's water enterprise fund plus the proceeds
from the sale or lease of Lake Calavera, to be used for
capital improvements of the water system. If City funds
received by the District are insufficient to meet the total construction costs of the list of enhacement projects, anincrease onthewater ratewill have to be considered at that time.
The discussion has so far addressed Phase I MFC-
qualifying projects, the need for which is created mostly by new development. The remaining projects shown in Table 6, totalling $17,240,000, are needed
mainly because of wear on the system which has created
the need to replace or enhance facilities.
As previously mentioned, City reserves for water
system improvements and proceeds from the sale or lease
of Lake Calavera are to be transferred to the District
as stated in the Water Service Agreement. The estimated
$3,000,000 in City reserves coupled with the estimated
$15,000,000 that could be generated by the sale of Lake
Calavera approximately $18,000,000 in assets. This
would result in a surplus of funds of $760,000 if applied to the construction of the enhancements
projects in Table 6. As shown on the following page
Table 8, the transfer of City funds from the sources
just described could avoid the cost of financing, thereby saving a substantial amount in interest costs, while not having to increase water rates.
.-
21
Table 8-Costa Real Municipal Water District
City of Carlsbad Contributions for Enhancement Projects
City Reserves $3,000,000
Sale of Other Property $1,500,000 Sale of Lake Calavera $15,000,000
Total $19,500,000 Enhancement Projects (Table 7) $17,240,000
Surplus of Funds $1,529,000
While it is recommended that no surcharge be le-
vied at this time, work on the enhancement projects
should not be undertaken until the issues of City contributions are resolved. One exception to the
recommendation is the Squires Reservoir project, The rehabilitation of Squires Reservoir should be
addressed for water quality reasons as soon as possible. For this reason the District may have to move ahead with this work by arranging short- term or interim financing.
Lake Calavera
The sale of Lake Calavera has been recommended in two City reports. A 1984 publication entitled "A
Report on the Evaluation of Lake Calavera and Mission Basis Well Field as Water Resources," by Glenn M.
Reiter, & Associates concluded "the cost involved in putting the limited quantities of water available to
beneficial use for domestic purposes are obviously prohibitive," and that "sale of the property
surrounding the lake with retention of the 'flooded' area for its limited flood control value (and residen-
tial development enhancement) would appear to be in the best interest of the City." A 1969 "Water System
Engineering Study" by Jack Y. Kubota and Wayne P. Lill recommended that "Water Department properties not needed for water supply purposes in the expanded future system should be liquidated as advantagously as
possible with the object of facilitating the I financing of needed new works." This report
recommends that action be taken as soon as possible to resolve this matter,
22
The ultimate use of Lake Calavera may be a politically sensitive matter, as recent opposition to
the idea of draining the lake indicated. Yet the
conversion of this non-functional asset to cash as a
way to pay for water system improvements should be
feasible by taking steps to preserve the enviornmental
amenities of the lake and surrounding 200-plus acres.
23
FINANCING
In undertaking a program involving the construction of public facilities, a factor of major
importance is the ability to obtain sufficient
financing. The District's certificate of participation program has been discussed relative to its affect on
existing debt service requirements and CRMWD policies
regarding funding this debt. Other financial methods
are available to the District and will next be
discussed. Debt security, which has been mentioned in
the section on funding, will first be covered since it is fundamental to arranging financing.
Debt Security
c
Consideration of the security CRMWD can offer for
its anticipated debt is important when evaluating financial alternatives. One financial method might be chosen over another because of market conditions which would be expected to favor one method (i.e. attract a lower interest rate). The national credit rating agen- cies, Standard & Poor's Corporation and Moody's
Investors Service, analyze several factors in order to rate a prospective debt issuer's credit worthiness.
According to Standard & Poor's "Credit Overview" report
on municipal ratings, there are four broad areas of concern covering established sectors of credit: economic, debt, administrative and fiscal.
Economic factors include the area's economy which
ultimately generate's the most important criteria: the agency's ability to repay debt. The analysts believe it is important for an area to offer economic diversity in
its revenue base along with diversity and growth in
employment opportunities. The creation of jobs and
adequate income levels are considered.
Debt factors include the type of security being
pledged to repay the debt, overall debt burden, debt history and trend. Standard & Poor's says the debt burden must be measured against the income and the agency's total budget resources. Debt history and
projected debt needs must also be considered, and a
community, as represdented by its public agency,
"should also be able to demonstrate a regular planning program for capital improvements.''
Administrative factors include an examination of the type of government involved and an assessment of
its ability to accomplish the job it's supposed to be doing. Limitations on the agency's ability to generate revenues, debt limitations, and current unused margin
24
(income in excess of current expenses) are also consi-
dered, with revenue resources having to at least equal
expense requirements. The analysts also evaluate such
management factors as personnel turnover, labor-manage- ment relations history, and legal and political
constraints that are present in the structure and
environment of the entity.
Fiscal factors include an examination of fiscal performance. The balance sheet for the general operat-
ing account of the district would be looked at to see if current assets of cash and investments exceed current liabilities. Financial statements are examined to see if an agency has its finances under control.
As stated in a 1983 report prepared for the County
of San Diego, "The underlying security of an issue of a public debt obligation is the prime determinant of
annual borrowing cost." The rating agencies evaluate security to determine the creditworthiness, which in turn attracts investors.
Various financing options, both traditional and
innovative, are available to CRMWD, and will next be discussed, starting with the program begun by the
District in 1984.
Certificates of Participation
CRMWD issued tax-exempt certificates of participa- tion (COPS), under terms of an Installment Sale Agree-' ment. This agreement was between Imperial Securities Corporation, the seller of the COPS, and CRMWD, the agent for the seller and owner of the facilities to be financed. Security for the COP'S was called the full faith and credit of the District, meaning all revenue
sources available to CRMWD would be used if needed to
pay off the debt. The actual mix of revenues designed to service the debt is detailed in Table 9.
Table 9-Costa Real Municipal Water District
Security Pledged to COP Financing
Source Est. Percent Connection Charges (new development) 36%
Property Taxes (Dist. share of 1% levy 17% Interest Earnings (on all dist. funds) 33%
allowed by Prop. 13 and allocated by the County)
Water Sales (capital surcharqe) 14%
100% Total
As previously stated, a capital surcharge has not
been used to service the COP debt although it is
available in case of revenue shortfalls in the other areas .
The ratings from Moody's Investors Service and
Standard & Poor's Corporation, the national credit rating agencies, were considered adequate by the
District's financial advisors in light of market condi- tions and the innovative nature of the COPS. The
ratings were "Baa" from Moody's "BBB+" from Standard &
Poor's. Essentially the same rating by both rating agencies, CRMWD's issue was considered neither highly
protected nor poorly secured, with interest payments
and principal security appearing adequate for the
present but with certain protective elements possibly
lacking or unreliable over any great length of time,
Such "bonds", or certificates in this case, are said to lack outstanding investment characteristics and to have
speculative characteristics.
The COP issue attracted three bidding syndicates at the competitive sale, with the winning group offer-
ing an average interest rate of 10.04 percent over the
20-year life of the certificates. The COP program has
been judged by the CRMWD staff and advisors to be
sucessful. Revenues have been adequate to meet debt service. Although it formed the basis of the
District's capital financing program, the COP program is but one of several methods the District may ultimately consider as it proceeds to implement the capital improvement program. Other financing techniques
relevant to the CIP will next be discussed.
General Obligation Bonds
Proposition 13 (Article XIIA of the Constitution of the State of California) has limited taxation to one
percent of full market value of real property. This has eliminated the use of general obligation bonds
unless voter authorization was obtained prior to July
1978. CRMWD has $300,000 of voter approved, unissued
G.O. bonds which could hypothetically be issued; how-
ever, issuance costs and the marketability of this
relatively small amount would reduce the net value of
the bonds. A legal opinion from bond counsel would
also be required. For these reasons G.O. bond financ- ing is not a meaningful option for the District.
Pay As You Go
25
A major benefit of using cash on hand to pay for
improvements is the substancial savings in interest
26
expense. The ability of the District to pay for cer- tain capital improvements from current funds is a func- tion of cash on hand, future cash flow conditions and the equitability of using funds generated by current
residents to pay for facilities which might benefit
future water users. An evaluation of benefits received by different classes of water users has been done and is reflected in Table 6.
As described heretofore, CRMWD has established a
major facilities charge for new development. The
future replacement and rehabilitation of existing faci-
lities could be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis by creating a sinking fund from a water rate surcharge;
however, this report recommends the issues of transferring City reserves and disposition of Lake Calavera be resolved prior to levying a surcharge. The
liquidation of real property assets presently
controlled by the City and the transfer of earmarked City reserves for water system improvements would a1 low
the District to employ pay-as-you-go financing for the rehabilitation (water user) category of projects.
A recent article in the Journal of the American
Water Works Association (September 1983) provided a general rule: cash-finance items of a recurring
nature, like routine improvements or replacement of mains and hydrants, but debt-finance major nonrecurring projects, like treatment plants and reservoirs. Use of
major facility charge revenues to fund the MFC-qualify- ing improvements and cash financing of enhancement/re- placement projects as proposed would follow this general rule.
---
Revenue Bonds
The Revenue Bond Law of 1941 may be used to finance water system improvements. The primary securi-
ty for this debt is the revenue produced by the project to be financed. For CRMWD primarily this means water sales, and since the 1984 COP program established a blend of debt service revenue sources, including a small percentage from water sales, the use of revenue bonds could conflict with established policy. The
issuance of revenue bonds requires authorization by a majority vote in a public election. Revenue bonds were considered by CRMWD in 1983 and ultimately rejected in favor of certificates of participation. Revenue bonds may be attractive depending on CRMWD's future requirements.
27
Special Assessments
Special assessment financing is applicable when
the benefit of the improvement can be assigned to a
specific property. The CIP projects are of a District-
wide benefit, with certain exceptions, like the Village Area Rehabilitation. Special assessments may be used- by the District to provide other facilities, though, and should be briefly described.
Assessments pursuant to various statutory provi-
sions may be levied against the benefitting properties according to the share of benefit. The assessments may
be calculated according to acreage, front footage along
a pipeline, number of dwelling units or similar basis. Such financing is often initiated by property owners
needing facilities to serve new development, or to
upgrade existing facilities. Special assessment districts could be formed by the CRMWD to finance facilities serving subareas of the District. However,
the use of special assessment District financing would
not conform to the District-wide nature of the capital improvement plan, and for this reason is not recommended for CIP financing at this time.
t
CRMWD has traditionally required developers to
install water facilities to serve new developments. The existing District policy is to accept such facili-
ties as contributions to the public water system once they are completed according to District specification. The District often requires developers to oversize a pipeline or other facility so that additional proper-
ties can be served. In such cases, the developer is required to pay for his share only. The District
adopts an area of benefit map and a reimbursement
agreement which establish charges to be collected when
new parcels develop. These proceeds cover the remain- ing costs of the facilities.
Lease Financing
--
Public agencies have used lease financing to cope with restrictions on the use of other methods (e.g.
G.O. bonds), or when market conditions favor it.
. Lease financing establishes the public agency as the
lessee of a facility financed by another party and
ultimately owned by the agency. In many ways a lease
revenue program would be structured similar to CRMWD's certificate of participation program. Lease revenue
bonds would be authorized by the lessee, typically a non-profit corporation or joint powers authority
created for the purpose. The bonds would be authorized without an election, but subject to the referendary
28
provisions available to the public which could
terminate the proceedings.
Security forthe bonds would bethe abilityofthe
lessee (CRMWD) to meet its financial obligations.
Pledged sources of security could include the general fund of the District, major facility charges, user
fees, a reserve fund and insurance. In other words,
the District's funding policies established by the 1984 certificate of participation program could be main-
tained. Once the lease was paid in full, the District would own the facility or facilities.
Not only does CRMWD's COP program seem compatible, but the similarity goes beyond appearance. Some transactions using "certificates of participation" have actually been forms of lease financing which, although
labeled the same as CRMWD's program, have been structured differently, Such a "COP" program would involve a lease with a purchase option or conditional sales agreement.
The similar structure and same label created problems when CRMWD's COP program was put together. The New York rating agencies viewed it as lease financ- ing, for which different credit evaluation criteria are used, CRMWD representatives emphasized the differences to help overcome the confusion. Additionally, the tax- exempt status of CRMWD's certificates was questioned
when the IRS ruled a COP issue by another agency to be non tax-exempt. Bond counsel to CRMWD dealt with the
IRS and rating agencies to solve this problem. Although CRMWD's program was not a lease financing
arrangement, the lines of distinction were blurred.
For this reason the role of bond counsel in reviewing
the structure of the program and certifying its tax- exempt status was particularly important, and the
District's program was successfully marketed,
Government Grants and Loans
The potable water industry does not benefit from the same level of governmental assistance as the waste- water industry, where Federal and State grants are
often used to finance major projects. The California Safe Water Bond Law of 1984 provided low interest loans up to $5,000,000 and grants up to $400,000 for eligible projects, defined as improvements needed to bring water systems to minimum drinking water standards.
In 1985 CRMWD applied for a loan to rehabilitate Squires Dam and Reservoir, for which the California Department of Heath Services has urged covering and
29
lining to meet current standards. Ranking of each application was based on the seriousness of each
system's deficiencies related to public health. CRMWD was ranked far down on the priority list and notified
that funding was not available because of its ranking. It is possible future loans will be -available but the likelihood of CRMWD qualification is not considered good at this time because of the lack of identified water quality problems affecting public health.
Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act became law in January 1983. It is available to local agencies as an alternate method for financing a wide range of public services and capital improvements, including water system facilities. Whereas special assessment financing is limited to local improvements where it can be clearly demonstrated that specific properties re-
ceive a direct benefit, Mello-Roos provides for special taxes to be levied without such precise restrictions. They can be used for any governmental facilities which
the legislative body is authorized by law to construct, own or operate, as necessary to meet increased demands
placed upon the agency by development or the need for
rehabilitation. The act also sets forth procedures for changing the originally intended uses of the tax pro-
ceeds, a major difference between Mello-Roos and
special assessment financing.
Under Mello-Roos a community facility district is formed by the public agency, subject to abandonment of the proceedings if 50 percent of the qualified voters or landowners protest, with approval required by a two-
thirds majority vote of the qualified electors. The vote is by registered voters except where less than 12
registered voters live within the proposed community facilities district, in which case each landowner has
one vote per acre or portion thereof. The voting
provisions facilitate public approval in situations
where less than 12 registered voters reside and where
the landowners want development of their property. For
this reason Mello-Roos has been used more often in
these circumstances.
Advantages of Mello-Roos
1. Considerable flexibility is available in the
2. The taxed property is not subject to a specific establishment of any special tax formula.
lien as it would be with assessment proceedings.
c
30
3. Special taxes can be structured so payment
accrues only upon development (i.e. upon occupancy of dwelling units), in which cases if development doesn't occur, there would not be any reason for the public facilities, and no need for taxes.
4. The special tax levy can be used to pay as you
go as well as to pay principal and interest on long- term bonded indebtedness. This offers greater
flexibility than assessment bonds, meaning opportunities for lower financing costs.
5. The structuring of the tax is not limited to
benefits to land, but can be more closely related to users of the service, allowing for payment based on the benefits received by those other than landowners.
Disadvantages of Mello-Roos
1. There is no express procedure to notify a buyer
or new homeowner his property is subject to a special tax. 2. A requirsment for reserve fund replenishment
could create an inequity where a few property owners would pay for the delinquency of othersI with no
procedure for solving this problem.
3. The structure of the special tax might produce
confusion as new people move into the territory.
4. The procedure for adopting the community
facility district allows for the financing to be arranged so quickly that potential problems cannot be adedquately dealt with.
Confusion and the specter of inequity, when raised
prior to an election, would make Me1 lo-Roos financing
difficult to sell to two-thirds of the voters. How-
ever, if a water shortage were imminent, pending re-
habilitation of existing facilities or construction of
new ones, and if it were evident such improvements would benefit all classes of users, voters might
provide the necessary approval. In this case the
District would be able to take advantage of the
positive aspects of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act.
31
CONCLUSIONS
1. The District has identified the major facilities
needed to meet the ultimate demands on the water system.
2. The costs of the required facilities have been identified in current dollars, and apportioned to the respective project beneficiaries. Exact
project costs will become known as the projects are developed.
3. The District has the funding mechanisms in place, through its Major Facilities Charge, water sales and other revenue sources to support a major
construction program.
4. There are several financial vehicles available as the District proceeds with its capital improvement program.
5. By adoption of this report, the District is in a position to proceed with its capital improvement program.
P
32 PARTIAL LIST OF
SOURCES CONSULTED
Andersen, Ralph, & Associates; Jones Hall Hill &
White; Rauscher Pierce Ref sns, Inc. "County
of San Diego: A Rebiew of Financing Methods for Capital Facilities and Equiptment, Final
Report" March 1983.
Bartle Wells Associates. "Costa Real Municipal
Water District : Major Facilities Financing Plan and Rate Study." June 1983.
Bartle Wells Associates. "Official Statement,
Costa real Municipal Water District,
$12,600,000 1984 Certificates of
Participation.'' February 1984.
Blakesley, William E., P.E. Engineer, Costa Real
Municipal Water District.
Brammell, Thomas La, C.P.Aa Controller, Costa Real
Municipal Water District.
Brown, F. MacRenzie, Attorney at Law. Unpublished (typewritten, undated) analysis of Mello-Roos
Community Facilities Act of 1982.
Burzell, Linden R., P.E. District Engineer, Costa Real Municipal Water District
California Legislature, Senate Committee on Local Government, Senator Milton Marks, Chairman.
"Closing the Gap: Infrastructure Needs And
Our Ability To Pay For Them: Summary of the testimony received at the interim hearing of
the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Public Works, November 27, 1984.
California Legislature, Senate Committee on Local
Government, Senator Milton Marks, Chairman.
"Public Infrastructure Financing Methods: Helping Communities Get What They Are Willing To Pay For: Summary Report." Summary of the testimony received at the interim hearing of the Subcommittee on Infrastructure and Public
Works, November 2, 1983.
California Office of Planning and Reasearch. Payinq
the PiEer: New Ways to pgy for Public
Infrastructure in Cali-Grnia. Sacramento: --- -- -- --- -- --- ------
983.
P
33
City of Carlsbad. Numerous documents and meetings
with several staff members and department heads.
Cole, Lisa A.; Duven, Dawn R.; Owen, Samuel H.;
and Vogt, John A. Guide to Municipal Leasinq. Foreward by John E. Petersen. Chicago:
Municipal Finance Officers Association, 1983.
Costa Real Municipal Water District. Financial
and general records.
Costa Real Municipal Water Distrtict. Urban Water
Manaqement Plan. December 1985.
Government Finance Research Center, Municipal
Finance Officers Association. Buildinq Prosperity: Financinq Public Infrastructure - for Economic ---- Development. Washington, D.C.:
Government Finance Research Center, 1983. Chap. 2.
---
Horler, Virginia L. "Guide ro Public Debt Financing in California." Los Angeles: Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc., 1982.
Kubota, Jack Y. and Lill, Wayne P. "Water System
Engineering Study: City of Carlsbad." January
1966.
Lemieux, Wayne K., Attorney at Law. Handbook - for
Local Aqency Officials. Sacramento: Associatzon-cf California Water Aqencies, ----e --------- - 1984.
McKinley, J. Rowe. "Financing Water Utility
Work s Imp r o v em e n t s . 'I Association Journal. September 1983.
Ame r i can Wa t e r ------_- --_-- -----
Miller, James W. "Old Water-New Water: Setting
Equitable Water Rates for Surburban
Customers." American Water Works Association
Journal. September 1984.
Moser, Gregory V., Attorney at Law. Legal Counsel,
Costa Real Municipal Water District.
Reiter, Glenn M. & Associates. "A Report on the Evaluation of the Lake Calavera and Mission Basin Well Field as Water Resources." City of Carlsbad, April 14, 1984.
P
34
Reiter, Glenn M. & Associates. "Diagnostic Analysis of the City of Carlsbad and Costa Real Municipal Water District Areas." City of Carlsbad, September 22, 1981.
San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego County Water Authority Member Agencies."
Report issued January 1985.
Standard and Poor's Corp. Credit Overview: - Municipal Ratinqs. New York: Standard and Poor's Corp., 1983. Part Two.
------ --------
Water Service Aqreement. City of Carlsbad and Costa Real Municipal Water District. May 25, 1983.
---
Wells, Edwin A., Principal Consultant. Bartle
Wells Associates. Municipal Financing Consultants.
Woodside/Kubota & Associates, Inc. "Draft Master
Plan for Public Water System." Costa Real Municipal Water District, February 1985.
P
Appendix A
COSTA RERL niiNICIPflL URiER OISlRiCl
20 YERR CAPITM IflPROUEnlHl PROJEClIONS
SWARY 1986-2005
Nmber of EOU's
tbjor facility Charge
IlfC X Inflation factor
HfC S Inflation factor
Property Taxes
Property lax 2 Inflation
Annual Uater Sales (A.f.1
Uater Sales X Increase
Capital Surcharge
Capital Surch X Inflator
Capital Surch $ Inflator
Capital fund Interest
Ongoing Capital Projects
Haster Plan Projects at:
No Construction Inflation
Projects constructed at Hid-phase year
101 financing for 20 years
1st paynent in year foiIouing construction
7
1000
S88O
0.oox so
$250,000
5.001
12,000
4.00X
60.09
0.001
$0
$300,000
S250,OOiI
5000
$880
1.00 so
$1,381,909
1.05
64,996
1.04
$0.00
1.00
$8
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
5000
$880
1.00 so
$1,763,065
1.05
79,077
1.04
$0.00
1.00
SO
Sl,250,000
s1,500,000
5000
$880
1.00
$0
$2,250,168
1.05
96,210
1.04
$0. 00
1.00
$0
$1,500,000
t1,250,000
5000
$880
1.00
SO
t.05
11 7,054
1.04 so. 00
1.00
SO
Sl,500,000
sz,wi ,848
$1,250,000
20000
$880
1 .oo
$0
58,266,489
1.05
1.04
so.00
1.00
SO
S6,000,000
$5,000,000
357,337
Rtuenues
najor facility Charges
Property Taw
Capital Surcharge
1964 COP Resenle interest
Capital fund Interest
Lake Calavera Proceeds
City Utility funds
Total Revenues
Expenditures
1'384 COP financing
Other Installnent Debt
Operating Capital Ites
1997 Phase I financing (86-90 projects $14,075,000j
1991 Phase I1 financing (91-00 projectsj
ZO0t Phase I!I financing (after 2000 projects1
lot31 Expenditures
$4 ,400 ,000
$2 ,?50,168
$0
$725,000
~1,500,000 so
SO
s4,!00,000
$?,871,848
$0
t725,OOO
s1,500,000 so
$0
$1 7,600,000
$6,266,499
$0
t2,9OO1O0O
S6,000,000 so
SO
S8,875 ,168 $9,496,848
$7,325,250 S7,638,050 97,647,2?5 S5,835,000
$81,300 so SO $0
$1 ,250.Fr10 S1,250,000 S1,!50,000 S1,?50,000
1;6,519,686 53,149,608 $8,149,608 $8,149,608 so so so
SO
S15,l XI,?!~ $1 7,037,658 St 7,046,833 St 5,?44,608
.------_-------------------------------------------------
534,766,489
Ne! Gain or (Lossj (51,169,826, W3,649,592! ($8,171,665) ('55,747,760) ($29,738,846)
Capital fund Balance $3,000,000 (S4,169,8?8! iS1?,819,421) ($20,991,066! ($26,738,846) ($26,738,846!
Appendix B
COSTA REAL RUNICIPAL URlfR OISTRICT
20 YfRR CflPIlRL IHPROUMINI PRaJECTIOHS
SUmW 1986-2005
Appendix C
Nurber of IOU's t 000
bjor facility Charge Sl,590
WC X Inflation ractor 0.oox
HrC S Inflation factor so
Property lares S250,000
Property Tax 1 Inflation 5.001
Rnnual Uater Sales (AJ.) 12,000
Uater Sales X Increase 4.00X
Capital Surcharge SO. 10
Capital Surch 1 Inflator 0.oox
Capital Surch S Inflator so
Capital rund Interest s300,000
Ongoing bpi tal Projects 5250,000
Haster Plan Projects at:
No Construction Inflation
Projects constructed at nid-phase year
101 financing far 20 years
1st paynent in year follouing construction c
5000
SI ,590
1.00
SO
Sl,381,408
1.05
64,996
1.04
S0,lO
1.00 so
SI ,500,000
$ 1 , 250,000
5000
SI ,590
1 .oo
SO
St ,763,065
1.05
79,077
1.04
$0.10
1.00 so
s1,500,000
SI ,250,000
5000
SI ,590
1.00 sa
S2,25O,l68
1.05
76,210
1.04
s0.10
1.00
$0
sl,500,000
s1,250,000
5000
Sl,590
1 .M so
$2,871,448
1.0s
1 17,054
1.01
s0.10
1.00 so
s1,500,000
s1,250,000
20000
SI ,590
1.00
SO
$8,266,489
1.05
357,337
1.04
$0.10
1.00 so
S6,000,000
S5,00(1,000
Reuenues
mor racility Charges
Property Taxes
Capital Surcharge
1964 COf Reserue Interest
Capital rund Interest
Lake blauera Proceeds
City Utility funds
S7,950,000 S7,950,000 S7,95010f10 S7,950,000 S31,800,000
01,381,408 St ,763,065 S2,2S0,168 S2,871,848 58,266,489
S2,831,220 $3,499,612 $4,190,897 $5,098,168 $15,565,591
$725 ,a00 $725,000 5725,000 S725,UOO SZ, 900,000
Sl,500,000 $1,500,000 S1,500,000 $1 ,500,OOO S6,000,000 so so so so so
$9 so so SO so
Iota1 Reuenues $19,387,628 S15,32,678 $16,616,065 $1 8,145,715 564,532,086
Expenditures
1984 COP financing
Other Ins tal lnent Oeh t
Operating Capital Itens
1987 Phase I financing (86-90 projects $19,075,000)
1991 Phase I1 financing (91-00 projects)
2ON Phase I11 financing (after ZOO0 projects)
7
Total fxpenditures
S7,325,t50 57 ,638,050 51,647,225 55,845,000
$81 $8 50 so SO
SI ,250,008 51,250,000 $1 ,250,000 st ,250,000
S6,519,686 56,149,608 58,149,608 58,149,608 so so SO so
$15,176,236 517,037,658 517,046,833 515,244,608
.___________________-----------~-------------------------
528,455,525
S81,300
s5,00o,000
$30,968 ,51 0 so so
$64,505,335
,-------------
Not Gain or (Loss) ($768,606~ (51,654,980) ($430,768) S2,901,107 526,151
Capital fund Balance S3,000,0Kl S2,211,392 5556,411 5125,694 S3,026,751 $3,026,751
r i
7
i
Is