Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-07-24; City Council; 6691; ACTION PLAN FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT AND RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBADa ' CITY Of CARLSBAD m k e-4 L LE:mmt Initial : - Dept. Head2 AGENDA 6ILL NO. DATE: July 24, 1981 DEPARTMENT: Eng i neer i ng SUBJECT: ACTION PLAN FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT AND RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD STATEMENT OF THE MATTER Over the past few years Carlsbad has been the focus of numerous studies addre sewage treatment and reclaimed water facilities. Attached to this agenda bil a report which attempts to compile the information presented in earlier repor develop an action program for the next five years. The first real need for reclaimed water will probably come as a result of the running short of sources of imported water necessary to accommodate developme Southern California. The shortfall should begin in about 1987. Until that t adequate sources of reclaimed water are available from existing or planned fa to serve present markets. With the pending approval of Phase IIIA of Encina expansion, adequate sewage capacity will exist through 1987-88 using "worst case'' population estimates. In order to provide sewage treatment for the Palomar Sewer Service Area east Camino Real, major interceptor and trunk lines must be constructed or the Pal Sewage Treatment Plant must be built. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Environmental impacts of the Action Plan recommendations have not been assess FISCAL IMPACT The report estimates future cost of sewage treatment for 45,000 EDUs at $32 m and reclamation facil itieS at $9 million. A connection charge of $1000 per E cover future cost of both sewage treatment and water reclamation. RECOMMENDAT I ONS In order to provide sewage treatment capacity now at the least cost and prese future option of constructing a wastewater reclamation facility, the Council 1. 2. Update the City of Carlsbad Sewage Collection System Master Plan. Negotiate with the San Marcos County Water District to obtain capacity ir proposed raw sewage interceptor to be constructed along the general aligr Palomar Airport Road. 3. Create an assessment district in the Palomar Sewer Service Area to provic lines to serve the proposed development east of El Camino Real. 4. Lift the moratorium in the Palomar Sewer Service Area. 5. 6. Establish the sewer construction fee of $1,000 as a water (reclaimed) anc capital facilities fee. Reserve the Koll treatment plant site for possible future facilities. - 0 (II -., 1 Page -2- ;~uly' 441981 ACTION PLAN FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT AND RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGENDA BILL# 6691 EXHIBITS 1. Letter from KO11 Company February 27, 1981 2. Action Plan for Sewage Treatment and Reclaimed Water Facilities for the City of Carlsbad. (on file in the City Clerk's Office and previously distributed to Council) Council Action: 7-24-81 Council approved the recormendations of staff as listed on I; 0 e T' J IC t- c. (j KOLL e.49 * - R-E c E 1 17~ 3 City Manager mY OF C,G.f;j-S34 City of Carlsbad 3evebmxal $2:vjc CONTRACTOR February 27, 1981 -_ 2 -3 f3cp $3 IVY*_ Mr, Frank Aleshire 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Palomar Airport Sewer Service Area Dear plpr, Aleshire: We have previously discussed the possibility that interim unallocated capacity of the City of Carlsbad ("the 'City") in the Encina Water Pollution Control facility fs'Encina Plant") might be made available at this time to the Palomar Airport Sewer Service Area, It is 01 desire to explore with you the interim use of this capac: by The Koll Company and other developers in the Palomar Airport Sewer Service Area. This presumes that a mutual: satisfactory method can be devised to assure the City future funding of replacement capacity either through construction of a Palomar Airport Wastewater Reclamation Plant or additional capacity at the Encina Plant, In this regard we would like to propose the following for your consideration, We want to further review the legal basis for our proposal but would like your response as to the practicality of this conceptual agproach. The concept which I would like you to consider is essentially a variation sf that set forth by Don Owen an( F, Mackenzie Brown in their "Financing Feasibility Study' prepared for the City of Carlsbad relative to a proposed Palomar Airport Reclamation Plant based upon the recent re-rating of the Encina Plant, As we understand it, such Feasibility Study recommends the formation of an assessment district at the present time to construct a satellite sewage treatment plant which can later be used for reclamation with appropriate additions and modificat: Various alternatives are also set forth for financing thc reclamation facilities at a future date, Since the City has obtained new capacity at Encina, and since the Calavera Hills Sewer Plant was recently constructed and may never be used, we would like the City to consider ou1 alternative solution to the Palomar Area Sewer situation 4490 Von Karman Avenue Newport Beach California 92660 * (714) 833-3030 - 0 0 I 44. 1-4 t ** I Mr. Frank Aleshire Page Two February 27, 1981 We would propose that the City might allow itself a further planning period of, for example, 10 years to mak its decision as to whether to construct the Palomar Airport Reclamation Plant or pursue another alternative, such as acquiring additional capacity at the Encina Plan This would be done by estimating the cost of designing and constructing the Palomar Airport Reclamation Plant and dividing this cost among the properties to be served on a usage or other appropriate basisp as would be done with an assessment district, Howeverp instead of actual forming an assessment district, each parcelDs share of this cost would be paid as connection charges at the tin of development. The charges would be accumulated in a fund €or the purpose of constructing the Palomar Airport Reclamation Plant, and would accrue interest, hopefully offsetting inflation in the design and construction CTOE of such facility. An escalation factor in the connectic charge eoulld also be utilized as to property not yet developed, to enable the fund to keep abreast of any in€lation, This is very similar to the Owen/Brown recommended approach, except that instead of using bond proceeds to construct the facilities now and using con- nection charges for debt service, the connection charge: would be accumulated and used directly at a later date to fund design and construction costs far the approach elected by the Cityo All of the owners of parcels to be served by the future plant would agree to pay these charges and further corn to allowing the formation of an assessment dj-strict at the time the City determines it is ready to build or acquire replacement capacityc over any af such parcels which are at that date undeveloped and have not yet pai the charges. Such assessment district would be for the purpose of generating the remaining funds to reach the previously estimated total. We feel a period of 20 yea would be adequate to allow the City to make a decision to whether it wants and needs the Palomar Airport Recla Plant, without unduly encumbering the marketability of property. If the City elected not to build the plant 2 to use some other method of meeting sewage treatment/ reclamation needs, such as an expansion of the Encina plant, it would apply the money to such other method, 2 the developers would not be given a refund, e 0 c.* +* * MS. Frank Aleshire February 27, 1981 *v ' Page Three Pending the City's decision as to construction of the Palomar Airport Reclamation Plant, the properties which have paid connection charges would be provided with thei necessary sewage treatment capacity at the Encina or som other plant, at no additional cost to them except for regular user fees- It is my belief that this may be very advantageous to botli the City and the developers in this service area, Substantial operation and maintenance costs to the City may be saved by delaying the construction and use of the Palamaa:Aisq?ortReclamation Plant until the City determin it would be economically sound and desirable to pursue reclamation. The City would retain the flexibility to make this decision for an additional 10 years and have a committed source of funds to do SO from the properties to be benefited, We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this approach with you at your convenience, Executive Vice President and General Counsel TLS:klt cc: Bernie Fipp 0 a rtv -5 > ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FAC~ 6200 Avenida P.O. Box 1005 July 27 , 1981 Carlsbad, CA Telephones (7 Dennts (2yl. &a General Manager (; and Chief Engineer City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 Attention: Mayor Ronald Packard and Counci 1 Members Subject: Action Plan for Sewage and Reclaimed Water Facilities for the City of Carlsbad Submitted for your review are comments regarding the Action Plan for Sew, and Reclaimed Water Facilities for the City of Carlsbad dated May 16, 191 Encina is supportive of the Action Plan and concurs with the conclusions and recommendations. Because it is felt that the methodology reaching t conclusions is weak, we would like to further reinforce each of the recoi mendations on Page B. 1. Currently the City has two Sewage Collection System Master Plans; in 197 a report was done by Brown and Caldwell , and in 1981 a report was done b Lowry & Associates. Both of these plans should be reviewed and integrat into an updated plan to satisfy the City's future planning needs. In addition, it is recommended, because of the City's active interest in pursuing a wastewater reclamation program that a Reclaimed Water Master be formulated at the same time. backbone of the reclaimed water system as they currently would be doing the domestic water and sewage coll ection systems. 2. Negotiate with the San Marcos County Water District to obtain capacil in their proposed raw sewage interceptor to be constructed along the ger alignment of Palomar Airport Road. It is imperative to begin negotiatic immediately with San Narcos County Water District in regards to oversiz- this line to serve the Palomar Airport area. In discussions with the dc engineer and the State Water Resources Control Board, who is funding thc a change order can be executed after bids are taken to oversize the linc accomodate Carlsbad's needs with relative ease. It is proposed that tht design not be oversized at this point in time because it might jeapordi; ability of San Marcos to obtain the Grant monies for the project before end of September. In addition, Carlsbad should begin now with an envir assessment of the proposed line to satisfy CEQA (Cal i fornia Environment Act). Update the City of Carlsbad's Sewage Collection System Master Plan. Developments could begin now putting in 0 0 q it ,Page 2 july 21 , 1981 Action Plan for Sewage Carlsbad should also direct Encina, as a part of the Phase I11 Project, tc construct a downstream metering station at the treatment plant on the San Marcos line to measure Carlsbad's flows and have a basis for allocating their operations and maintenance cost on the line. The funding of this particular aspect can be accomplished by monies already on deposit by Carlsbad for the Phase 111 project. 3. Create an assessment district in the Palomar Sewer Service Area to pri trunk lines to serve the proposed development east of El Camino Real. An assessment district or possibly a general agreement among the major land owners to provide the backbone system should be initiated by the major la owners immediately. 4. Since adequat capacity exists at Encina and Lake Calavera until 1987, there is no longe any need for a moratorium within the City of Carlsbad. 5. Establish the sewer construction fee of $1,000 as a water (reclaimed) sewer capital facilities fee. In reviewing the cost of the proposed futl facilities in the Palomar Sewer Service area, the reduction of the sewer connection fee from $2,000 will more than adequately fund the needed impi ments and will make the connection fees consistent within the City. 6. Reserve the Koll treatment plant site for possible future facilities This recommendation, from a planning standpoint, reserves Carlsbad's abi' to evaluate in the future its option regarding sewage treatment and wastf reclamation at two sites, namely, Palomar and Encina. It is wise not to preclude future planning options until a comprehensive study is done reg ing those treatment and water reclamation costs at the two sites. Since the Action Plan does not totally enlighten the reader in regards t of the proposed implementation plans, it is generally concluded that at point in time all sewage flows will go to Encina for treatment. At a ti the future, when there is sufficient development within the Lake Calaver area, that plant will be activated, 1) when reclaimed water market devel the area or, 2) sewage treatment plant capacity limits are reached at Er Until then it is more cost effective for disposal reasons to treat at Er Within the next few years, planning will begin in regards to the alterni of sewage treatment, at Palomar or Encina. The determination whether sf treatment will be at Palomar or Encina will be entirely dependent on thc water reclamation issue, At present, a Phase IV Project Report is bein: to assess the needs of each of the member agencies to Encina for a twenl planning period. Whether or not Carlsbad at this time elects to partic in a Phase IV project expansion, their needs for the next twenty years ' included in the report. If I can be of any further assistance, or if you desire any further inf please do not hesitate to call. Lift the moratorium in the Palomar Sewer Service Area. 6) ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES HCI,,, I' b 6200 Avenida Encinas, P.O. Box 1005, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (714) 438-3941, (714) 4 Servmg North San Diego County 0 e 2“ t 2”*, ,Page 3 iuly 21, 1981 Action Plan for Sewage ‘kenera1 Manager and Chief Engineer DMR/ k 1 w cc: Mr. Frank Aleshire, City Manager, City of Carlsbad Mr. Ron Beckman, Assistant City Manager, City of Carlsbad Mr. Les Evans, City Engineer, City of Carlsbad “XLLI <a\ ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES 6, 6200 Avenida Encinas, P.O. Box 1005, Carlsbad, CA 92008 (714) 438-3941, (714) 43 Servmg Norfh San Diego County -.-COST L REAL MUNICIPAL WATER Dl: July 8, 1981 City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carl sbad, California 92008 Subject: SEWER ACTION PROGRAM It is my understanding that the City's Sewer Action Program will be discui by the City Council and possibly adopted in the near future. Although th! Water District has not been inv-ited to comment, I believe it is appropria for me to provide some input, since I am concerned about various aspects I the report. I believe the report has three inherent problems, which can I generally described as follows. l. The report treats wastewater reclamation as a new source of potal water. This leads to the faulty conclusion that reclamation can itself accommodate new devel opment, or save Carl sbad from a ''watt cri si s. 'I 2. The functions of potable water supply, sewage treatment, and rec' mation should be considered separately (even though they all invc certain aspects of water resource management). Failure to do th confuses salient issues. The report erroneously places reclamat as an end, or cure-all, to which sewage treatment is a means. 11 reality, reclamation is a by-product of sewage treatment which m( or may not, depending on conditions, be justifiable. There appears to be a lack of understanding about the potable wa supply situation. This leads to the unrealistic conclusion that blanket water shortages will occur by 1987 and that these shorta will stifle development. 3. The following comments are made w-ith the preceding in mind. I. Gn page A the report says "the Council must take action to insure ade water facilities to accomodate future development." On page 27 it s "this report will project the year 1987 as the earliest year reclaimed wa be necessary in order to provide adequate water to accommodate deveiopmen The point to be made is that reclaimed, or nonpotable, water cannot accoii; 0 0 Y , J'< , City of Carlsbad July 8, 1981 Page 2 development. Carlsbad can do virtually nothing on its own to create new potable water sources at this time. Regional water importation facilities serving Carlsbad have been develope( the State of California, Metropolitan Mater District of Southern Californ- and the San Diego County Water Authority. The single most important faci' presently needed to help Carlsbad accommodate long term development is tht Peripheral Canal in northern California. Issues such as the Peripheral Canal, electrical power supply for the Stat Water Project, and the loss of Colorado River water are serious, and we c have imported water deficiencies in the future. As a way to help conserv our potable water resotirces, reclamation has a definite role to play. Ho reclamation will only play a supplemental role, and should be kept in per spective as the City of Car:sbad considers the construction of multi-mill dollar reclamation facilities. By judging reclamation on its ability to mitigate esthetic and economic impacts of future imported water shortages City can analyze its proposed program more realistically, on the basis of return on investment. Reclamation should not be judged as a life-support program, however. Potable (in our case, imported) water does, and the City of 11. When sewage treatment is considered as more than simply a means to a water reclamation, and when other pertinent factors are more careful analyzed, the City's reclamation effort can be seen in a different light. for example, states "at this point in time it appears that sewage treatme pacity for Carlsbad will not be a problem for the next ten years." On pi the report says "it appears that, for sewage treatment purposes, the mosi effective capacity will continue to be at Encina." 1 believe more analy: Encina plant expansions should be done. The report alludes to the fact 1 the timing of future Encina expansions is not certain, and that it requij coordination with other Encina members; however, the City has 10 years 0' time (during which time Carl sbad has adequate sewage treatment capacity) which to accomplish necessary projects. Another factor which should be pointed out is that the size of the San M- County Water District's Meadowlark Plant is understated in the report by 4.4 million gallons per day. With a production of 5 MGD rather than .6 stated in the report, the Meadowlark Plant can satisfy a potential deman nearly 3,000 acre feet per year of nonpotable water (see page 27, paragr With the availability of this volume of reclaimed water from San Marcos, construction of satellite plants in Carlsbad strictly for reclamation pu should be seriously re-examined. In addition, the expansion of capacity Meadowlark Plant might be analyzed in terms of its effect on Encina capa Page 27, paragraph 5 states that "it appears that the market for reclairr already exists, but that pricing will not be competitive for 25 years." 7 0 0 . *', City of Carlsbad Juiy 8, 1981 Page 3 significant when keeping in mind that (1) sewage treatment capacity can bt vided more economically at Encina; and (2) the expansion of San Marcos' P lark Plant, requiring no Carlsbad funds, will satisfy a potential nonpotai water demand of nearly 3,000 acre feet per year. 111. sti fl ed. The Metropolitan Water District's policy regarding regional water supply on a priority of water use system. Domestic or municipal water uses are top priority and would be the last affected by a water shortage. Out of current annual water deliveries of approximately 1.5 million acre feet, a 475,000 acre feet are "interruptible" deliveries. That is, they are lowe ority water uses which wouqd be cut back first during water shortages. A established by MWD's new Interruptible Water Pricing program, the list, i of those deliveries to be cut back first, is: There is no basis for concluding that Carlsbad's potable water supp- in danger of being so limited within five years that development wi' 1. Groundwater replenishment by spreading 2. 3. Reservoir storage 4. Agricultural water for annual crops 5. Agricultural water for permanent crops 6. Agricultural water for livestock and poultry 7. Groundwater replenishment by in-lieu of pumping Groundwater replenishment by injection into seawater barrier pro, Of the above, some 225,000 per year acre feet for groundwater replenishmr be "conveniently" interrupted. That is to say, groundwater basins in Orl Los Angeles and other counties can sustain overdrafts for several years, imported supplies are deficient, without adversely affecting service to public or economy of Southern California. The existence of groundwater in other counties is beneficial to San Diego County in the sense of sust noninterruptible deliveries during water shortages. This regional pooling of water will be achieved through financial incent offered by MWD to agencies having the ability to "bank" water. An inter water rate priced 37% lower than noninterruptible water became effective 1981. Agencies having long term storage capacity may purchase specified of water at the reduced rate by guaranteeing that the same volume will k able to storage-deficient agencies during water shortfalls. This form C insurance" will help Southern California cope with future shortages- 1 < 0 0 4 I ', City of Carlsbad July 8, 1981 Page 4 When the magnitude of a shortage affects all categories of interruptible v rationing of noninterruptible domestic deliveries would be required. Thi: means nonessential domestic water uses would have to be curtailed. In thi situation, the availability of reclaimed water would enable some agriculti and recreational/esthetic water uses to continue. However, reclamation wc not provide additional drinking water and, although it has a beneficial rc to play, rec1amation"would not be the panacea. On page 34, paragraph 2, the Sewer Action Plan states that the constructir $40 million of wastewater collection, treatment and reclamation facilitie would accommodate about 45,000 equivalent dwelling units, or a population 110,000. Adequate sewage collection and treatment facilities will be nee1 to serve these people, but, once again, the distinction should be made be potable and nonpotable water service. Reclaimed water, as a by-product o sewage treatment, cannot satisfy the domestic water demands of 110,000 pe) because it is nonpotable. 'Projected shortfalls of imported water should therefore be used as a catch-all justification for expensive water reclam facilities. SUMMARY Among our natural resources, water is one of the most vital to the healtt- welfare of a city. A community's economic health is also of utmost impor Mithin the broad definition of water management, reclamation is important should be done where economically feasible. It is not a substitute for F water, however, which will continue to be the lifeblood of Carlsbad. The availability of reclaimed water from San Marcos means Carlsbad can 1( forward to having greener parks and more farming during water shortages 1 communities lacking reclaimed water. But Carlsbad will continue to be rt on imported water for new development. Before moving ahead with the construction of additional satellite treatmf plants, the City might wish to re-assess the financial viability of this Perhaps an optimal level of benefits versus cost can be obtained by maxir participation in the Encina regional sewage treatment project; while als imizing opportunities for cooperation with other agencies in the product distribution of reclaimed water within Carl sbad. Costa Real Municipal Water District and the City of Carlsbad can be part the important task of providing water to the community. I believe oppor exist for us to work together in the management of Carlsbad's water reso Just as Southern California's prosperity depends on the cooperation of a LC 1 I( * rlb d 9’, 1 City of Carlsbad July 8, 1981 Page 5 and people comprising the worid’s most advanced water industry, Carlsbad’s tinued welfare depends on a cooperative approach to the management of our t munity’s lifeblood -- WATER. Si n cere1 y , COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 6 William C. Meadows Ge net- a 1 Man a g er WCM: fw r ? * e 0 I 1 L. ACTION PLAN FOR e3 SEWAGE AND RECLAIMED WATER FACILITIES FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MAY 6, 1981 ComFiled from information contained in previous stxdies and reports submitted to the City t * CONTENTS 0 t 0 < I P - PURPOSE OF THE ACTION PLAN ............... CK"3KTJJON AND RECOMMENDATIONS- . - - .. * . - * - - - . - - BACKGROUND 208Plan. .................... Carlsbad Overview of Wastewater Reclamation Opportunities .... Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan ............ Palomar Airport Wastewater Reclamation Project Financing Feasibility Study - Palomar Reclamation Facility ........ .... Moratoria... ................. SEWAGE TREATMENT CAPACITY NEEDS Population Projections ............... Encina Expansion Program .............. Sewage Transmission Lines .............. REXLAIMED WATER NEEDS Availability of Reclaimed Water ............ Sale of Reclaimed Water. .............. Demandforwater ................. Markets for Reclaimed Water ............. SiteSelection ................. Financing ................... I r * 0 0 -A- i L Purpose of the Action Plan The Carlsbad City Council have been advocates of wastewater reclamation for the past four years. Considerable effort has been expended by both the Council and City staff in planning for future sewage treatment and reclaimed water sources which would be wholly under the control of the City. At this point in time it appears that sewage treatment capacity for Carlsbad will not be a problem for the next ten years. Adequate water supply, however, could become a problem within five years. Accordingly, the Council must take action to insure adequat water facilities to accommodate future development. # 4 -B- e o 1 ' CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The first real need for reclaimed water will probably come as a r of the MWD running short of sources of imported water necessary to accom development in Southern California. The shortfall should begin in about Until that time, adequate sources of reclaimed water are available from ing or planned facilities to serve present markets. With the pending approval of Phase IIIA of Encina expansion, adeq sewage treatment capacity will exist through 1987-88 using "worst case" population estimates. In order to provide sewage treatment for the Palomar Sewer Servic east of El Camino Real, major interceptor and trunk lines must be constr or the Palomar Sewage Treatment Plant must be built. Whether or not a Palomar Airport Wastewater Reclamation Facility built now or not, it appears that a site should be reserved for such a facility in the future. The optimum location for wastewater reclamatior facilities are near the trash compaction facility atthe northeast cornel Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real and the Koll site in the Carlsbz Research Center. In order to provide sewage treatment capacity now at the least cc and preserve the future option of constructing a wastewater reclamation ity, the Council should: 1. 2. Update the City of Carlsbad Sewage Collection System Master Plan. Negotiate with the San Marcos County Water District to obtain capac: in their proposed raw sewage interceptor to be constructed along tht general alignment of Palomar Airport Road. 3. Create an assessment district in the Palomar Sewer Service Area to ] trunk lines to serve the proposed development east of El Camino Rea: 4. Lift the moratorium in the Palomar Sewer Service Area. 5. EstablishXhe sewer construction fee of $1,000 as a water (reclaime and sewer capital facilities fee. Reserve the Koll treatment plant site for possible future facilitie 6. t i 0 e \ I . .I 1 - 208 Plan The Areawide Water Quality Management Plan was adopted by the C on June 19, 1978. The Plan contains recommended programs for reclaimi wastewater to help meet our future water demands. Included in the rep are sixteen recommended wastewater reclamation projects of which two s Carlsbad as the implementing agency. The two projects are: (1) A 0.5 facility in Lake Calavera Hills to be utilized for agricultural and greenbelt irrigation; and (2) a 2.0 mgd facility in the Palomar Airpor area to provide irrigation of agricultural lands, golf courses and lar scaping. Both projects were targeted for operation by 1985. Carlsbad Overview of Wastewater Reclamation Opportunities During the same time period in which the CPO Areawide Water Qui Management Plan was being finalized, the City contracted with Lowry ai Associates (the same firm who prepared the reclamation portion of the to examine the feasibility of a wastewater reclamation program which ( be implemented by the City of Carlsbad. pursue a reclamation program and presented an outline of a basic syst The report was completed in March, 1978. The report recommended that 1 I i 0 e I 1 I -2- Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan As a followup to the Overview Study, the City Council approved preparation of a wastewater reclamation master plan on June 5, 1979. ' study described three potential locations for the construction of sate wastewater reclamation facilities, and discussed reuse markets, wastew flows, excess effluent connections and storage facilities for each. T Plan recommends 3.2 mgd of reclamtion facilities in place by 1985, inc a 2.5 mgd facility in the vicinity of Palomar Airport. Palomar Airport Wastewater Reclamation Project In February 1980, the Koll Company presented a report to the Council discussing a proposed wastewater reclamation project to serve Koll Business Park. The Koll Company requested that they be authorize build the first phase of this reclamation facility and be repaid throc reimbursement agreement with the City. Y J 3 0 e I -3- Financing Feasibility Study - Palomar Airport Reclamation Facility In October 1980, the firm of Brown and Nazarek and Don Owen and Associates submitted a report to the City which examined the possibilit of funding a proposed wastewater reclamation facility through assessmer district financing. The report proposed a construction of a reclamatic facility through the issuance of $24 million in revenue bonds to be retrieved through a combination of sewer connection fees, reclaimed wa sales and an annual acreage assessment for nine years. The study also presented a thirty-month schedule for completing the recommended progr Moratoria After over three years of moratorium, the Carlsbad City Council lifted the restriction on discretionary approvals in the Encina Sewer Service Area. Effective July 2, 1980, permits for sewer connections k available for all areas within the City with the exception of the Lake Calavera Hills sewer service area and the Palomar Airport Sewer Servic Area. On March 3, 1981, the Council lifted the Planning moratorium or developments located in areas to be served by a satellite sewage treat plant. The March ordinance does not allow the approval of final subd ision maps or issuance of building permits until the City Council fin( that sewer capacity is in fact available. 1 -4- e: 0 t -7 b 2; -2 5: -t 2.22 -L I w --- - / . x' 1985 1995 Sewer Area Population Units Population units Encina 33,412 13,693 45,935 19,464 LCH 5,858 1,878 19,747 6,905 Palomar 909 431 5,599 2,814 Service Dwe 1 1 ing Dwelling 200 I: Population 51,435 26,413 9,948 7 @ e 1 -6- When SANDAG estimates future sewage flows they consider only popul rather than attempting to estimate flow from dwelling units, commercial d opment and industry. for each person. Presently Carlsbad's sewer service area population is i 30,000 and our sewage flows are 3.3 mgd. Using SANDAG's method of flow c lation, our present sewage flows should be only 3.0 mgd. It is apparent SANDAG's method of projecting sewage capacity is about ten percent low. They simply use an approximation of 100 gallons of The City uses a figure of 246 gallons per day €or each dwelling u: for estimating sewage treatment capacity. The application of this figur the dwelling unit forecasts on the previous page provide the following s capacity need in each basin: SEWAGE CAPACITY FOR DWELLING UNITS 1985 1995 2000 Encina 3.37 mgd 4.79 mgd 5.57 mgd LCH 0.46 mgd 1.70 mgd 2.28 mgd Palomar 0.11 mgd 0.69 mgd 1.24 mgd TOTALS : 3.94 mgd 7.18 mgd 9.09 mgd r 0 a I - 7- The City also has Commercial/IzdustriaI developent projectic which are approximately as follows: COPMERCIAL/INDUSTE;L~X (in acres ) 1985 1995 2000 Encina . 348/21 369/141 3691141 XH \ Palomar 98/19 127 f 1273 127/1273 o/o 16/4 16f 4 'I. Using an estimate of 1500 gallons/day/acre for COmerical, and 2500 gallons/day/acre for industrial, the following table results: SEWAGE CAPACITY FOR COMPERCIA.L/INDUST~U DEVELOPMENT 1985 1995 2000 Encina 0.57 mgd 0.86 mgd 1-69 mgd m1 -0- 0-02 ngd 0.03 mgd Palomar 0.20 mgd ' 3-47 mgd 3-47 mgd Combining the residential/commercialfindustrial flows yields the following results: SEWAGE FLOWS (E@) 1985 1995 2000 Encina 3-94 5.65 7.26 LC- 0.46 1.72 2.31 Palomar 0.31 4.16 4.71 4.71 11.53 14 r 28 - TOTAL : 0 0 I -8 - The result of the analysis is a "range" of future sewage capacit: needs based on the Series V Population Forecasts. By the year 2000, th range of sewage capacity required (based on the same Series V datalis a band between -9.1 mgd and 14.3 mgd. The required treatment facilities necessary to insure adequate treatment capacity range from a conservati approach to sewage flows in which the Lake Calavera Hills treatment pl? and the ultimate Encina facility provide more than enough capacity thrc the year 2000 to a more radical scenerio which shows the City falling : of treatment capacitybg1.3 mgd and requiring more Encina capacity (Pha: by 1988 (see page 9). No matter which projections are utilized, it appears that there be adequate treatment capacity through 1988. Using the SANDAG project the City will have adequate treatment capacity through 1995. The timi the Encina Phase IV and Phase V expansions as well as the portion of t capacity which is available to Carlsbad will also have a significant e on whether ornot thecity will be able to meet its future sewage treat needs - . --_, -,, ,- T. '-. ---' *- - - _* __.__-.- - ~ -____ Y 0 0 -1 0- ENCINA EXPANSION PROGRAM A few months ago the Encina General Manager preFared a brief report that described the costs of future additions to the Encina Treatment Facility. The costs in that report were modified in P?arch by a Fraser/Wilson reDort entitled, "Prel iminary Report: Encina Ocean Outfall .'I Utilizina the dat provided in the two reuorts, the following table can be constructed: Encina Carl sbad Carl sbad' s Cost Cost per Expans Year Capacity Capacity ($ thousand) EDU3 Pha: 1982 18.0 4.56 3400 $732 Phase 1982 22.5 5.72 150 32 Phase 1990' 30.0 7.742 1700 207 Phase 1996' 45.0 11.78' 7885 480 Phase NOTE: The above cost estimates are all in 1981 dollars 1 The year in which expansion will take place has been selected based on Carlsbad's need for additional caDacity to serve SANDA' sewage flow projections Carlsbad's share of future expansions has been estimated to be 26.9% An EDU has been estimated at 246 gallons per day 2 3 The relatively inexpensive capacity of Phases IIIA and IV is primarily d to the Phase I11 sizing of pipeline and buildings to handle the ultimate 45 million gallon per day capacity at Encina. It appears that, for sewage treatment purposes, the most cost-effective capacity will continue to be at Encina. A problem that the City will surely face, however, is: !dho decides when Encina enlaraement will take place? Recrional populatio projections indicate the need for 24 mgd of treatment capacity by 1995. Assumina that the capacity of Encina is 22.5 mqd by 1983, and that the following satellite plants are in operation: Lake Calavera Hills (Carlsbad) 1.2 mgd Shadow Ridge (Buena) 1.0 mgd Meadowl ark (San Flarcos) 3.6 mgd 0.75 mqd Gafner ( LC~JD) 3.55 mgd - 0 0 -11- Over 26 mad of treatment capacity will be available. forecasts don't indicate a need for over 26 rngd capacity in the Encina service area until the year 2000. Unfortunately, Carlsbad may need additional sewage treatment capacity by 1990. from another agency, expanding Encina before nost of the other agencies have a need for the capacity, buildinq a satellite sewaae treatment plant (Palomar), or declaring a sewer moratorium. The SANDAG populatil Options include the purchase or lease of unused Encina capacity Y e 0 - 12 - Sewage Transmission Lines In 1976 Borwn and Caldwell prepared a sewer system improvement plan for the City. which would be required to collect sewage and deliver it to the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant. The major remaining facilities to be constructec under the Brown and Caldwell plan are shown on the following page. With the construction of the Lake Calavera Hills Sewage Treatme The plan identified major interceptors and pump stat: Facility, the need for some of the facilities proposed in the 1976 plan changed. Essentially, the Cannon interceptor which would have carried t Lake Calavera Hills sewage to Encina need no longer be extended to El Ca Real. A few other changes have also resulted which can be identified by comparing the plans on the following pages. i 0 e -13- The Palomar Sewer Service area is almost completely lacking in sewage transmission lines to collect raw sewage and deliver it to a treatment facility. Whether or not a wastewater treatment facility is built in the Palomar Airport area, certain collection facilities must be constructed. In order to provide service to the North La Costa Area, a transmission facility should be constructed along the general alignment o Carrillo Road, with a pump station located in the Valley adjacent to Alga Road (see attached map). The force main would be constructed northerly along El Camino Real to the vicinity of the Palomar Airport Business Park where it could again become a gravity line. The raw sewage volumes which would be handled by the North La Costa system would be about 2 million gallons a day. The cost of the system is estimated at about $1.7 millior dollars. The majority of the system must be in place prior to the develc ment of the Carrillo Ranch area. The Koll properties, as well as the Signal Landmark and Huntin1 Beach land which lie north and westerly of the airport will probably be served by a force main originating at the site of the wastewater reclama facility originally proposed by Koll. The line would discharge near the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue. through the Koll force main is about 1.5 million gallons a day. The estimated The area north of Palomar Airport Road which lies within the Palomar Sewage Service area could probably be served by a gravity line i the canyon in which the Buena force main and the Shadow Ridge reclaimed line are located, The canyon terminates near the northeast corner of E: Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road, The cost of the Palomar Canyon 1: estimated at $250,000 and the sewage flows will be about 1 million gall ', 0 0 - 15- The remaining area in the Palomar Sewer Service area is primal Palomar Airport Business Park property. The flow from this area is est: at about 0.6 million gallons a day. Both areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road will discharge in1 the existing Encinas Interceptor which the City and the Buena Sanitatioi District share. The City's capacity in the line ranges from 1.2 millioi gallons a day in the Palomar Airport Business Park area to 3 million ga. a day near Interstate 5. It appears that the Encinas Interceptor will adequate for the sewage flows from the Palomar Canyon line and the Palo Airport Business Park. Assuming the proposed Palomar Wastewater Reclamation Facility not built, another method of disposing of the ultimate 2 mgd from North La Costa and the 1.5 mgd from Koll, Signal and Huntington must be deve: The San Marcos County Water District is presently finalizing plans for the construction of a major rawsewage interceptorwhich will ( east of Rancho Santa Fe Road at the San Marcos Blvd Pump Station. The will cross El Camino Real near Camino Vida Roble and continue westerly Encinas Canyon to the Encina Sewage Treatment Plant. The appropriate ( of the facility will be $8 million of which 75% will be grant funded. Carlsbad has been offered the opportunity to participate in ownership of the San Marcos interceptor as long as we make a decision to finalization of construction plans. The portion of the line Carlsb would be interested in is approximately 16,600 feet of 24" to 30" rein concrete pipe. The price tag €or our share of the line would probabll about $500,000. , OCgANS!DE CITY OF ca SQUBWE8 DAM LA COSTA AVE - - - {=brce M40L - 4r4giJy Sewr t] hyp s+a.f,o., MASOR SEWG~ Td/7E-pcGfproes a Srwq, TFlA#M,h+ Pid M 1- IF - - UGk AN 2~ I Ut '8 I CtTM OF CL SQWIIRES OR?& i ! - - - p*,,, MdhA - e; rkq,*+ 9 I - 4*rc t, +w a P-p s4,+k MhTOR SEWL'Q LUT6I gws,-Ba, hks C.LP*lPOP@ d 19 Stwoje ~~tk.Pm+ phhf SIWIJL Tft*(-r-Y I OCFANSKpE t PAC86lC OCEAN --- Force M@ak - GrwtPy rr\brepp&- MAJOR SEWER Z!JT€RCE (Wlh Lakc @k/4rlts-r, t(;l(, h31 Burn@ S+k+OL a Swage TtwL,It4 QIAnP paf @- 4, 9 l*part St WAJc Tre<+,-the-+ Fr, ci I;+, es} & 0 e I - 19- AVAILABILITY OF RECLAIMED WATER During the moratorium years of 1977, 78 and 79, many of the Encina Agencic considered the reactivation or construction of satellite sewage treatment plants. sources of reclaimed water, but the timing of their construction was diet, by the building moratorium. Presently there are four satellite sewage treatment plants with the poten to provide reclaimed water within Carlsbad. The Lake Calavera Hills Plan of course, has sewage treatment capacity of 1.2 mgd and, with the additio of $3/4 million in tertiary treatment facilities and the construction of distribution system, could become a source of reclaimed water. The other facilities are: The potential sites were chosen for their suitability as future P1 ant Owner Location (&It Gaf ner P1 ant Leucadia County La Costa Avenue 0.7: Meadowlark Plant San Marcos County San Marcos Canyon 0.7 Mater District at El Camino Real Water District below Rancho Santa Fe Road Shadow Ridge Plant Buena Sanitation Vista - Melrose 1 .o District near Sycamore All the water from these facilities could be available to markets in Car The Meadowlark and Shadow Ridge Facilities utilize a reclaimed waterline passes through Carlsbad along the general route of Palomar Airport Road. present potential of the four satellite plants is a little over 3.5 mgd, over 60% of the City's ultimate need as described in the Lowry report. < a e - 20 - l SALE OF RECLAIMED WATER The Lowry Master Plan for Reclaimed Water recommended: "That reclaimed water be offered for sale at no less than the true net cost to produce and distribute. If this cost is greater than the cost of potable water, it is doubtful that there will be agricultural customers. Landsca irrigation may still be a viable market since developers would find them- selves in a position of having to subsidize the reclaimed water facilitie in order to obtain waste water treatment and disposal capacity." Lowry emphasizes that: "Establishingthe future cost of imported h or reclaimed water, is an exceedingly difficult matter. Imported water k been subsidized over the years by a number of federal and state programs going all the way back to the mid-1930's. In addition, the property tax income from many of the water agencies acts as a subsidy to the market p: of potable water." The Master Plan concludes: "Despite all these complications, the final decision to be made by an irrigator will be dependent upon his or I actual cost. Increasing costs or providing imported water, particularly regard to anticipated increases in the cost of energy, which will impact imported water to a higher degree, will change the relative cost of the sources of water on an almost continuing basis." Projections of the cos both imported and reclaimed water are shown in Figure X-2 from the Lowry These curves indicate that over the years the cost of potable water will increase to the point where reclaimed water will be competitive. At tha a natural agricultural market will develop. -c 6- E l' * 1 I i 1 YEAR NBtE: - @ A.W.T.& DISTRIBUTION- 0 a M ONLY @ A.W.?.& DISTRIDUTIQN CAPITAL Bd8 &M @ TREATMENT 8-t A.W.f.-O s( M ONLY @ FREABMEN'b & A.W,T.-CAPlTAL 8a O& M @ POTABLE WATER 1 EsT1FfiA3-Em lZrd9O ec3s-r as= bVbQ,TEF! f ! A.W.T. is Advanced Waste Treatment 0 & M is Operations and Maintenance F I G U I? ' I 1 ?I 0 - 22 - 0 ', 1 DEMAND FOR WATER There is an apparent assumption in each of the previous planning studies that membership in MWD assures a full future water supply, subjec only to the capacity between the point of need and the MWD facility. Whj this has been true in the past, and may for the next five or six years prove to be the case, beyond that point there is substantial doubt as to ability of MWD to meet the unlimited increase in water demand upon its s Plate 1 sets forth MWD's projection of water requirements. It should be noted that the MWD was delivering approximately 750,000 acre feet of wat in 1960. At the present time, MWD is delivering about 1,500,000 acre-fe MWD anticipates 2.2 million acre-feet of demand on its system by 2000. in the last 20 years, MWD has experienced a 100% increase in demand. Ir next 20 years, MWD anticipates only a 50% increase in demand. While this may be conservative for MWD's financial projections, i does present some serious problems for projections by member agencies. the last 20 years, not only has MWD increased its supply, but the major. available local surface and groundwater supply facilities within MWD ha7 fully utilized and implemented. In addition, while everyone hopes that influx of population in Southern California has peaked, this appears to wishful thinking in light of the fact that once again immigration to Ca demand is at an all-time high, far greater than it was at any time duri the past 20-year period. The supply to MWD under the current contractual commitments is a imately 2.7 million acre-feet. MWD, in the last 20 years has spent its cipal efforts in trying to protect from diminution, its current water c 0 - 23 - 0 , ', -, , ... .- , i I i : 5 t 1 $ 2 B 1 t ! .I $989 - 1999- 2009 - 2010- 2c 1990 2000 201 0 202 0 011~~~11 Years 2c 1970- lODO i -. ..-. . .- . . MET~OPOLITAN 'WATER DISTRICT i :I 'I ' OF SOUTIIERN CALIFORNIA WATER SUPPLY AND DENAND I- PLATE I 1 7 0 I 24 .- 0 At present, there is no prospective new water supply. major importation project is probably 30 years under current conditons. State Water Project was 26 years from concept to accomplished fact. The lead time for There is evidence that both State and Federal bureaucracies may adc policies directed at growth-related problems in Southern California whic would seek solutions by essentially imposing a lid on current MWD contra1 Augmentation of such a policy could be accomplished through Federal cont of the Colorado River supplies and the State control of State water-proj This would be in the nature of Statewide land use controls imposed by wa utility constraint. The State Water Project, as currently completed, is not capable of meeting the full schedule of contract commitments. The ability to meet the contract commitments is promised by the completion of the Periphera: Canal at the Delta. Even the completion of the Peripheral Canal would leave the State Water Project 1.1 million acre feet short from meeting current commitment. SB 200, passed in the 1980 legislative session, clearly identified the need Statewide of accomplishing 1.1 million acre of water through conjunctive use and/or wastewater reclamation within t State. Within several hours following the signature by the Governor of SI thereby authorizing the Peripheral Canal, a referendum movement was unc which has essentially frozen the Peripheral Canal, probably until an e is held in June 1981. Y 0 0 IC ,. I - 25 - In fact, we may not be comparing the cost of water from the MWD syst to the cost of reclaimed water in Carlsbad, but rather we may be comparj whether or not Carlsbad can have any additional water. To the extent thi wastewater reclamation can be used in lieu of the fresh water supplies mi be the only basis for additional water supplies available to Carlsbad a€+ 1985. An additional item that has been used in the previous studies is a comparison of the cost effectiveness of wastewater reclamation with the sales price from MWD. In fact, MWD's water, which is sold to constituen members is approximately 50% of the real cost of developing the water. Therefore, a measure of cost effectiveness should not compare the subsic costs of MWD water with the full cost of wastewater reclamation. The rapid escalation of the cost of MWD water to reflect its full development cost may well be the first and most important conservation measure by MWD in order to effect rationing of its supplies to its cons members. 1 This section was taken in its entirety from the Owen and Associates Financing Feasibility Study, October 1980. . Y 0 , - 26 - e Markets for Reclaimed Water The Lowry and Associates "Wastewater Reclamation Master Plan for the City addressed the issue of reuse markets. The Lowry analysis indicated that the greatest need for reclaimed water is for irrigatio: purposes. The report concluded that "in the early years of the (recli program, existing agricultural water uses will predominate, Agriculti demand will be supplemented and eventually could be replaced by a groi reuse market for landscape irrigation," a - 27 - e >'. The Master Plan included a chart (Figurev-10) which estimated the potential demand for reclaimed water through 2025. describes, a substantial opportunity for utilization of reclaimed water already exists in the form of agricultural irrigation. In order to convt existing agricultural irrigation from potable water to reclaimed water, Plan suggested an active marketing program with possible financial induc ments and regulations favoring use of reclaimed water. As the chart As agricultural demand decreases, the need for landscape irrig in urbanized areas should more than offset the loss of agriculture (accc to Figure V-10). ' The Lowry data demonstrates that as agricultural demand decrei to zero, the demand for reclaimed water could increase from the present 3000 acre feet per year (approximately a billion gallons) to almost 500( acre feet per year (about 1.7 billion gallons). The estimates assume t all new urban development in the City will be required to install dual water systems and utilized reclaimed water for landscape irrigation. Since the major need for irrigation water is between October April, a potential demand for 3000 acre feet of agricultural water coul be provided by a 5.5 mgd reclamation facility with no storage. Obvious the provision of reclaimed water storage facilities would reduce the cz of the reclamation facilities required to meet irrigation demand. It appears that the market €or reclaimed water already exist but that pricing will not be competitive for 25 years. However, the M1 estimates it may no longer have adequate sources of water to meet projl development needs in Southern California after the year 1987. Therefo this report will project the year 1987 as the earliest year reclaimed be necessary in order to provide adequate water to accommodate develoE I)) I ammD YEAR ! 9 1 8 1 i 3 d !I 5 3 i URBAN DEMAND PROJECTED WECLAIMED WATER us= FePR STUDY AREA FlC i P e e I 29 - IC L , " , Site Selection The Lowry and Associates' report on the proposed Palomar Airport Wastewater Facility dated October 1980, included some brief comments on the cost effective locations for a wastewater reclamation facility. The report states: The relative cost for each site was determined by comparing components consisting of reclamation facilities, storage reservoir pump stations and length of pipelines. It was assumed that the land cost for the reclamation facilities at each site would be approximately the same. reclamation facilities and the storage reservoir and the unit costs of pump stations and pipelines would be the same. facility components for each site differed only in the number of relatively small pump stations and length of transmission mains, force mains and excess effluent pipe, Since the Palomar Airport Research Center site requires the fewest pump stations and short- est length of pipelines, it was inferred that this site is the most cost effective of the three sites studied. It was also assumed that the cost of the The The cost of pipelines has been affected by the savings accruing from cooperative participation in the San Marcos excess effluent outfall. However, the business park site still require! the shortest length of pipelines. Thus, the Carlsbad Research Center site remains the most cost effective site. f' .c, I 4 18 , .. I P -. .- i .. 0 *. e * . ...,.. . ..,, . -. - . -. . , -1 -... . . .-.. -1 . . , .. - - +. . 0 0 - 31 - ’6 “i r I . ,I , A detailed comparative analysis has not been made of the operation and maintenance (O&M) cost of the three sites studied. Cost of O&M for 1 reclamation plant and storage reservoir would be essentially the same fo- each site. Assuming that the personnel requirements would be similar fo each site, pumping costs would then represent the only differential OW cost. sidering total system pumping. relatively little effluent pumping to obtain the desired distribution pressure but would require considerable raw wastewater pumping. The bu: park site, on the other hand, would require considerable effluent pumpii but very little raw wastewater pumping. The same analogy can be appliec to the Canyon de las Encinas site, leading to the conclusion that the differential pumping costs will be insignificant. Therefore, the O&M c for each site would be for all particial purposes equal. However, it appears that this cost differential will be minor cor For example, the County site would requi An unpublished look at the same problem by Don Owen Associates ci up with a different answer. According to the Owen study, the County s at the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road is most cost effective location for a reclamation plant. The Owen report identified five potential locations as shown on the attached map and a them as if the effluent from each of four drainage basins was collectf single point and pumped through a force main to a centralized locatior cost comparison is then based simply on the cost of the force main, p: cost of operation of the pump station. The results of the study are 1 0 I 32 - 0 c' ..d I. I ,t L ,' , TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF COSTS 2/ Total Cost Power & Pig I/ Site Pipe Length cost- KWHR/Day Energy Cost- - 1 30,050 3,606,000 4,164 786,996 4,392,996 31,000 3,720,000 4,653 880,813 4,601,060 2 4,929 933,322 4,113,322 3 26,500 3,180,000 32,500 * 3,900,000 5,401 1,022,409 4,922,409 4 5 33,000 3,960,000 5,175 979,900 4,939,900 1/ Based on $120/Ft. 2/ - 20 Year Cost of Power at 60 MIL/KHWR. - v 0 0 '* , Sf * 1.; ' - 33 - Finally, another unpublished report by Bill Fannon, a consultin engineer for the Koll Company, identified the Carlsbad Research Center sj as the most cost effective. He bases his conclusion on the differential pumping costs for the CRC and County sites. He states, "For capital cost the Camino Real Site is burdened with the necessity for building a raw sf pump station and force main to pump sewage back from the area to the wesi El Cdno Real. They also have to construct an outfall line from the si down to the point of connection to the San Marcos Outfall." He continue his analysis of pumping costs, saying, "If we pump 50% of the reclaimed from the Koll site, the cost is about the same as pumping 2.0 mgd of raw sewage back up to the (County) site. If we should ever achieve 100% ret then the costs of pumping would be the same for both sites." The net result of all the analysis of possible sites is that t answer is not clear. Given firm markets for reclaimed water and fixed E costs, a selection could be made. At this time, we can only conclude t: both the CRC location (site No. 1) and the County site (site NO. 3) havi potential for locating sewage treatment and reclamation facilities. 9 - 34 - <' b * 'b , h'; L F I NAP1 C I NG In his unpublished "Focus Study" Don Owen suggests that: "The establishment at this time of a development fee for sewage treatment and wastewater reclamation service could be established based on a cost estimate of the future expenditures to be made by the City for the required services . 'I 4n estimate of future costs for construction of wastewater collection, trea ment, and reclamation facilities has been compiled and is presented on the following page. The cost estimates are rather rough and are based on 1981 dollars. From the available data it appears that the total cost to the Cit of the ultimate backbone system is on the order of $40 million. These facilities would accommodate about 45,000 equivalent dwelling units, or a population of 110,900. As was discussed earlier in this report, water may not be available to sery projected growth after 1987. This restraint offers an adequate basis by wI to establish a combined water and sewer hookup fee of about $906. Obvious the fee would have to be adjusted annually to reflect increases in the cos' of construction. Don Owen evaluated the City's future need for sewage and reclamation facil and came up with a hookup fee not to exceed $1,056. The present hookup fe $1,000 is probably adequate to serve the City's future needs. Mr. Owen fu recommended, in a letter to the City, that: "Since it would be necessary to construct some of the facilities in relatively large stages, it would from time to time be necessary to advance some of the anticipated hookup fees in order to have the necessary cash flow to construct the required facilities. be noted that in arriving at the $1,056 hookup costs, we have in- cluded a $5,000,000 contingency and reserve fund. represents the approximate amount of unused capacity which the City currently has available to it in the Encina NPCF and should be pre- served as a reserve fund for the construction of facilities. "In the event the addition of each component of the overall plan was a lesser cost than the funds available to the City at the time that construction was required, payment could be made on a pay as you go basis out of the reserve and contingency fitnd. expenditure required something larger than that, the City could forrr an assessment district and/or a non-profi t corporation which would be capable of issuing bonds using property and/or contracts with the non-profit corporation as security for the bonds while actually meet their obligations for repayment out of the hookup fees. This method of financing has been discussed in greater detail in the report whir we presented to you in October, 1980, entitled 'Financing Feasibili- Study, City of Carlsbad, Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Progri It should This fund In the event the f - 35 - t Ab < .> J t .I J ,*# FUTURE COSTS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES Encina Phase I\/ 8,200 EDUs $- w Encina Phase V 16,400 EDUs Palomar Airport 20,325 EDUs 15,500,000 SEWAGE COLLECTION FACILITIES San Marcos Interceptor - 500 , 000 Pal omar Service Area e 2 , 000 , 000 Lake Calavera Hills Service Area - ~,600,000 Encina Service Area - 4,000,000 RECLAMATION FACILITIES Lake Calavera Hills AWT 1.2 mgd 750,000 Lake Calavera Hills EDL - 1,200,000 Pa 1 omar ANT 5.0 rngd 4,500,000 Storage - . 1,500,000 Contingencies and Reserve 10% 3,700,000 $- v.3 1 8.33 NOTE : Any facilities installed by assessment districts are assumed to be paid off by sewer connection revenues.