HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-10-13; City Council; 6698-1; Report of Glenn ReiterCm JF CARLSBAD - AGENDA. ,ILL
AH3^?<r-*V
MTf3 10/13/81
HFPT UTL
TITLE: REPORT OF GLENN REITER -
DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS OF WATER SERVICE FOR
THE CARLSBAD COMMUNITY
DEPT. HP^^y-
CITY ATTY,/^O
CITY MGR.j2^
oex
0)
a)
cuoo
•Ha
00i
oI
o
oo
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the report by minute motion.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Council approved an agreement with Glenn Reiter and Associates on August 4, 1981
to develop a report on the present water facilities and future water facility
needs for the Carlsbad Community Area (City and CRMWD). Mr. Reiter utilized the
approach used in developing the public facilities fee in developing his analysis.
Mr. Reiter has completed his report which is attached and will be available to
respond to questions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
EXHIBITS:
A. Renter Report - To be distributed later
GLENN M. REITER, & ASSOCIATES
4126 AVATI DRIVE, BAN DIEGO, CA 92117 • TELEPHONE 714/27B-362B
DIAGNOSTIC ANALYSIS
of the
City of Carlsbad
and
Costa Real Municipal
Water District Areas
prepared for
The City of Carlsbad
September 22, 1981
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS i
I. PURPOSE 1-1
II. SCOPE OF WORK II-l
III. BACKGROUND III-l
IV. METHODOLOGY IV-1
V. FUTURE WATER AVAILABILITY V-l
VI. FUTURE WATER DEMAND VI-1
Water Storage VI-2
Pipeline Capacity VI-U
VII. INVENTORY OF CURRENT ASSETS
AND LIABILITIES VII-1
VIII. FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES
REQUIREMENTS VIII-1
Replacement Program VIII-1
Pumping VIII-6
New Capacity VIII-7
IX. FINANCE IX-1
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Page
A CITY OF CARLSBAD C.I.P A-l
B PROPOSED PROJECTS OF
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT - STORAGE B-l
LIST OF TABLES
1 CITY OF CARLSBAD FIXED ASSETS . . . VII-2
2 CITY OF CARLSBAD DEBT SCHEDULE. . . VII-3
3 COSTA REAL FIXED ASSETS VII-U
U COSTA REAL DEBT SCHEDULE VII 5-7
5 AUDIT REPORT COMPARISON VII-8
6 CITY OF CARLSBAD FIVE YEAR
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE . . VIII-2
7 COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER
DISTRICT PIPELINE PROJECTS VIII u-5
LIST OF PLATES
WATER SERVICE AREA III-3
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
There are three broad issues the community has to address in
it's future water plan. (1) What assets and liabilities
does the community currently have? (2) What facilities
will be needed for ultimate build out? (3) How will these
facilities be payed for?
It can be noted in the following Chapters the three main
transmission lines from the aqueduct to the service area may
not have adequate capacity at ultimate build out. In addition,
the service area will require a substantial amount of additional
ain transmission lines and storage capacity.
Squires Dam, which represents 93% of the community's storage,
is dependent upon the Health Department's approval. This
could become a problem should that approval be withdrawn.
It could result in the expenditure of funds for either a
downstream filter plant, or the construction of additional
storage.
Fortunately, the community has relatively little outstanding
debt for water facilities. From the information submitted
and estimates made, it appears approximately $1*5 million
worth of new facilities will be necessary to complete the
community's ultimate water system.
The City has developed a Capital Improvements and replacement
program which identifies it's needs, costs, and funding
sources for the next 5 years. Costa Real is in the process
of developing a Capital Improvement and replacement program.
However, it has not proceeded far enough to identify all the
service area needs, costs, or funding sources. The following
is a summary of the Facilities identified in the report.
COMBINED FACILITY NEEDS
Facilities Cost
1. Pipeline replacement $ U,323,000
2. Storage facilities 22,255,000,
3. Transmission lines 16,3U7,000,
U. Joint Operations Center 2,050,000.
$i*U,975,000,
ii
NOTE: The following facilities may have to be constructed.
1. Additional covered storage or a filter plant if the
Health Department enforces it's covered storage policy.
2. Additional transmission capacity from the aqueduct if
the population and water demand develops as noted in
Chapter V.
3. Steel lines in certain areas corrode faster than normal.
The pipelines listed in Table 7 may have to be replaced
sooner than the normal 50 year life.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
In order to build these facilities, it will be necessary for
the community to develop a plan which would include the
following elements.
1. A comprehensive community wide master water plan.
2. A facilities replacement program.
3. An immediate and long range Capital Improvement program.
i*. A short and long term cash flow plan for all non-
operating revenues and expenses, i.e., Capital Improvement
funding.
iii
5. A five year cash program for system operations.
6. A revised water rate schedule that will encourage
conservation and assess cost in proportion to benefit
7. A comprehensive analysis of all non-operating charges
a.) Developer contributions.
b.) Connection fee.
c.) Account set-up fee.
8. Capital Improvement fund sources,
a.) Revenue sharing.
b.) Municipal Lease backs/iNon Profit Corp.
c.) Assessment Districts.
d.) Revenue Bonds.
e.) Grants.
f.) Short term loans.
g.) Standby charges.
iiii
CHAPTER I.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the report is to inventory the water facility
assets of the City of Carlsbad and Costa Real Water District
service areas.
In addition, identify those facilities necessary to provide
an adequate water supply to ultimate build out. This examination
would include those facilities that will have to be replaced,
either through deterioration or lack of adequate capacity.
It will be the initial step in preparing a skeleton Capital
Improvements and replacement program.
In order to implement such a program, a long-term financial
plan has to be developed to provide the necessary funding.
The future development of any community is dependent upon an
adequate water supply. A key ingredient in the provision of
this service is a planned and funded Capital program. The
foregoing items will be analyzed in an effort to provide an
insight as to the community's capability in fulfilling this
i Kplan.
1. "Community" is used as a collective term for the service areas
of both Costa Real and the City of Carlsbad.
1-1
CHAPTER II.
SCOPE OF WORK
1. Current inventory of major assets. This effort
will include inspection of existing records to identify
major assets, including such items as pump stations, pipelines,
tanks, as well as system expansion capability. In other
words, those items that are considered an asset to any
enterprise type operation.
2. Facilities required to build out. This task would
involve a brief overview of the gross requirements, i.e.,
total water delivery capability, storage, etc. to provide
adequate water service for complete build out. It will not
address specific sizes, location, and exact cost.
3. Capital replacement program. A list of those
facilities that have to be replaced before the year 2000
will be identified, based upon existing records of each
agency.
I*. Long-term financial program. This effort will
II-l
include a review of the Capital funding requirements as
determined by the Capital Improvements program. It will
also include a discussion on the various financing plans
available for funding both operations and Capital Improvements,
along with an observation as to the appropriateness of each
of those methods.
II-2
CHAPTER III.
BACKGROUND
The City of Carlsbad has recognized a key element in it's
future growth will depend upon an adequate water supply.
There are two major elements in utility planning.
1. A master water plan addressing the needs of the
proposed land use.
2. A suitable funding program.
The development of a master water plan, in large part, is
dependent upon land use planning. However/ for the purposes
of analyzing the needs on a regional basis, gross water
demands can be estimated and incorporated in the program. A
major difficulty in developing a long range plan is determining
a suitable financing plan for constructing the facilities.
General Obligation Bonds, in the past, have proven to be one
of the most effective low cost means of financing Public
Works projects. Unfortunately, this vehicle is no longer
available. The development of an alternative and equitable
program has to take into consideration the nature of the
area, i.e., is it developed (replacement program) or is it
in a developing area (new capacity) and what is the ability
III-l
to pay for these improvements and who best pays for them -
the developer/ land owner, water user???
The establishment of a master water plan and cost estimate
is a relatively straight forward effort. However, the major
policy decision is "who pays and when???". The success of
any program is dependent upon this decision. Each funding
plan has to be customized to meet the specific needs of the
community, as there is no one universal solution to a
Capital Improvement funding program.
OPERATION RELATIONSHIP
The Costa Real Municipal Water District encompasses a service
area of approximately 20,000 acres. The District provides
both retail and wholesale water service. Three major transmission
lines deliver treated water from the aqueduct system to the
community as noted in Plate 1. In addition, the District
provides regulating and emergency storage for the entire
community in its Squires Dam reservoir. The City, in turn,
receives its water through five metering stations from Costa
Real's system. Carlsbad pays Costa Real $16.00 an acre foot
for this service. This $16.00 is in addition to the cost of
the water.
III-2
LU
IU
Z
zo
inu
m
E
CO
CO
-co ~1
Sill
CCZ
.So
CM
O
(0
IUccoc
-ICC
<UJ
ISI"
0)oo
ffl
COuDC
<O
COz<
UJoo
Ulo
UjlU
Q
Z
IUo
IU
ui(£<
ujo
>a:ui<n
o K. a:
UJ UJ
_ <o ?
O
>io
Ei-
o
oc
UJ1-
^_l
UJoc
H
(0oo
uoc
Ulo
oc
UJv>
o
ffl
W
oc
^o
u.o
^.1-
u
T-1
Ul
<
Q.
CHAPTER IV.
METHODOLOGY
Since the information contained in this report is applicable
to the entire community, it was determined the Scope of Work
should be developed by the staff of both agencies. The data
used in this report was obtained during meetings with both
staffs, as well as individual interviews, to insure accuracy
and completeness. It is the intention of this report to
provide the community with enough information to determine
their agency's ability to provide for it's future water
needs.
In addition, it will identify those areas that may need more
attention in order for the community to fulfill it's master
water plan. It will also provide an approximate estimate of
future costs for this program so adequate provision may be
made for the procurement of the necessary funds.
Abbreviations: 1MGD = one million gallons per day.
1ACFT = one acre foot of water = 325,830 gallons,
1 cfs = one cubic foot per second flow = kSQ
gallons per minute,
gpcd = gallon per capita per day.
IV-1
CHAPTER V.
FUTURE WATER AVAILABILITY
San Diego County Water Authority
With the construction of the Fifth Barrel/ the San Diego
County Water Authority will have sufficient aqueduct capacity
to about the year 2000. Additional facilities will be
required beyond the year 2000.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)
has a contract with the State of California for 2,500,000
acre feet of water/ per year/ which should meet the needs of
Southern California until the year 2020. However, MWD will
have to construct additional distribution facilities to the
San Diego area prior to the year 2000.
In order for the State to meet it's contractural commitment
to deliver this water/ it will be necessary to construct
additional water conservation facilities. One of which is
the Peripheral Canal. A combination of facilities are
included in the construction program to guarantee the
delivery of water.
V-l
The Peripheral Canal/ or any other conservation structures/
will take considerable time to construct. The Central
Arizona project coming online in 1985/ will obviously reduce
the availability of water to MWD. In preparation of this
reduction/ as well as a possible drought/ MWD has instituted
their interruptible water plan which encourages member
agencies to store as much water as possible in surface
reservoirs or underground basins.
Further/ MWD is now working with the local communities to
encourage and fund waste water reclamation programs to
supplement the water supply for Southern California. MWD
anticipates their interruptible pricing program, coupled
with waste water reclamation/ would be sufficient to carry
the state through a drought period in 1985-86. However, the
State of California does have to complete it's water facilities
in order to guarantee an adequate supply of water to Southern
California to the year 2020.
The foregoing emphasizes the need for long-term storage/
water conservation and waste water reclamation, in order to
meet the community's long-term commitment for an adequate
water supply.
V-2
CHAPTER VI.
FUTURE WATER DEMAND
A report "Water System, Engineering Study - City of Carlsbad
1966" ' estimated the City would have a population of
40,000 by 1980 and the average daily per capita consumption
would decline from 280 gallons per day to 200 gallons per
capita per day. Therefore, the City's water demand would
increase from a "current 1966 usage of 3.3 million gallons
per day to 8 million gallons per day in 1980".
SANDAG Series V Population Study indicated the City of
Carlsbad's service area has a population of 19,000. Its
water consumption for 1980 was 5318 ACFT, or U.70 MGD. This
equates to 2U8 gpcd. This is relatively high because it
includes industrial, as well as domestic consumption. It
has been estimated the City's ultimate population will be
2.
160,000 people. This projection encompasses an area of
2U,000 acres which is considered the entire planning area
for the City of Carlsbad. For the purposes of this study,
the 20,000 acre service area of the Costa Real Municipal
Water District was used. Assuming the population density
1. Water System Engineering Study - City of Carlsbad
Jack Y. Kubota/Wayne P. Li 11, January 1966.
2. City of Carlsbad Interim Growth Management Program prepared by
Sedway/Cooke, May 1981.
VI-i
for ultimate build out Is evenly distributed/ this would
result in a service area population of 133,335 people.
It is anticipated the daily per capita demand may decrease
due to water conservation efforts/ the use of reclaimed
water, and the increased cost of water. For the purposes of
this study/ 160 gpcd has been selected as a reasonable
consumption. This is equivalent to a 21.33 MGD (33.1 cfs)
ultimate demand. Currently, the average annual demand on
the system is 11.9 MGD, or 18.U3 cfs.
WATER STORAGE
In planning the future needs of the community water supply
system, the obvious elements are the ability to transport a
sufficient amount of water from the aquaduct to the service
area and operational and emergency water storage. Currently,
the community can store approximately 3 weeks of average
annual demand. This amount of storage is a major safety
factor considering the possibility of a failure in the
aqueduct system. Assuming this policy continues in the
future, this would mean there would be an ultimate need of
1375 AF (acre feet) of storage.
VI-2
EXISTING STORAGE CAPABILITY
COSTA REAL
Faci1i ty Capac!ty
MG
Eight Distribution reservoirs 7.3
Squires I 195.5
TOTAL 202.8 or
622.6 acre feet
EXISTING STORAGE CAPABILITY
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Faci1i ty Capacity
MG
Three reservoirs
COMBINED CAPACITY 210.8 or
6^7.2 AF
VI-3
Approximately 93 percent of this storage is in Squires Dam.
The Health Department requires all filtered domestic water
supplies be retained in covered storage. Squires Dam does
not meet this criteria and could be considered inadequate as
per Health Department standards. Currently the District is
under no order or demand to take the reservoir out of service.
PIPELINE CAPACITY
The service area is supplied by 3 transmission lines connected
to the San Diego County Water Authority aqueduct. They are
as follows:
Fac?1ity Capacity
1. Tri-agencies pipeline consturcted
in 1979. 20 cfs
2. ID #1 pipeline, 1957. 25 cfs
3. South aqueduct line, 1981. 1U cfs
TOTAL 59 cfs delivery
capabi1i ty
These 3 pipelines are the basic imported supply to the service
area. In addition, the City of Carlsbad has rights to 3,1*00
acre feet of ground water in the San Luis Rey River.
Vl-t*
Previously/ it was estimated the ultimate population will
require an annual average flow of 21.33 MGD, or 33.1 cfs.
Transmission lines are normally designed to accommodate
maximum day (2.2 times annual average demand). In this
case, that would result in a maximum day demand of 1*6.9 MGD,
or 72.70 cfs. This would exceed the delivery capability of
the 3 existing lines. The current maximum day demand is
approximately 1*0.6 cfs.
The community is only 23 percent developed. This leaves
approximately 15,UOO acres either undeveloped or in agricultural
production. As the community urbanizes (and there is every
indication it will), the total demand for water may decrease,
depending upon the intensity of development. As a general
rule, as an agricultural area urbanizes to a medium density,
total water demand does not change appreciably, however,
peak demand begins to reduce. One fortunate aspect of the
community's service area is that it can be served by gravity,
thus relieving it's dependence upon mechanical pumping
devices and energy. In the forthcoming years, energy will
become a major component in the cost of distributing water.
VI-5
CHAPTER VII.
INVENTORY OF CURRENT ASSETS AND LIABILITIES -
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Previous reports ' have itemized the various facilities
owned by the Utilities Dept. of the City of Carlsbad. The
foregoing has been compiled from these reports and the
City's financial records in an effort to provide information
concerning the value of those assets. Table 1.
The City of Carlsbad's outstanding debt is as noted in
Table 2.
INVENTORY OF CURRENT ASSETS - COSTA REAL
The capital assets owned by Costa Real are as noted in
Table 3. Table k is a summary of their outstanding debt
obligations. Table 5 is a synopsis of the financial statements
of both Costa Real and the City of Carlsbad for the years
1978 through 1980. It can be noted the two agencies are
quite similar from a fiscal standpoint.
1. Water Service in the Carlsbad Area - Ralph Anderson & Associates,
September 1979.
VII-1
TABLE 1
CITY OF CARLSBAD FIXED ASSETS AS OF 6/30/80. (1)
Category Value (not Including
depreciation)
1. Land and Water Rights $231,955.
2. Buildings 37,96U.
3. Autos and trucks 132,693.
U. Purification 10,681*.
5. Pumps and booster stations 136,661*.
6. Wells, reservoirs, and dams 1,286,8U9.
7. Field and shop equipment 68,865.
8. Office furniture, fixtures, and
equipment. 36,590.
9. Transmission mains 266,586.
10. Distribution lines (N. Carlsbad) 916.
11. Transmission and distribution lines.
(Terramar) . 1U1,U57.
12. Collection lines and company meters 16,931.
13. Meters and services 812,U83.
U. Fire Hydrants 297,565.
15. Distribution lines (Carlsbad) 3,322,179.
16. Lake Calavera property (appraised
value 6/15/7U by
Rob. M. Dodd, S.R.A., M.A.I.) 1,900,000.
TOTAL fixed assets: $8,800,381.
1. From the records of the City Treasurer's Office.
VII-2
CD
£H•-Hf£DH
2$*5
g»-^Pu
0H
J<O-,0so£(X,
Qz<:
feUc£U
£ £IB-
*™* fr • l^*o 3 o&§£3ggu£ z
•M 2-^ 1*4 *^D > 2<3 £3 W
So « £J cn 5
(£ S CX< DS w
O O OS>.fa > Jo P* <
S$P*— « fcj* M0 £ -3
cnJ U
J D< inin»__«
_-4*v.
OTo)•*•*Vjocn
ROS
(L>
ww
1—4
3Os•— i
CD
COV)•-M
oomOs
•—4
-3ow•»*
D
U}
S•-.4sPi
U
4-»CO
<L>
MV4->
*— •
"rta
oc.-*i-tCL,
4-*
l/>OJ(-1
2c1—4
t— 1atC
'o
r*.5
MCL,
4-Jina>Ui<y4-1
C
IUc
^_
Du
J-crtOJ
o »nm r-~
Os O•* CO•* cs
r- —4
-f CO
^™4 ^"H
'J>
O OO O
in min m
so so
0 0co co
v>-
OOO
mCO
</>
S inCM
in socs oO CO
-4 O—1 ~H
</v
o o88
m m
«/»•
0 0m m
Os Os
££
in •*cs cs
«/>
§o
8
in incs cs
t^-
-< csr-v r^
Os OS*-l —4
o ih mo cs t^
CS CO CS
ST. -1* COin m co
CS CO Osoo r- f^•-H —4 *— 4
888
m m f^o o oCS 1* rf
oo in CMr^ r^- t^
S^>^•4
0 O OO Q OO O O
O O O"* •* -1<
O m inin r-v cs
t^ CO sO*co so min co -H
o o o«—(—(—«
§§§
m m in
o o oin m m
Os Os Osso SO SOr^ i^> t^
co es -Hes cs cs
o o o
888
in in ocs cs co
co •* mr- r^. r>.
OS Os Os
— 4 -H — »
in mcs r*
oo m— < inco r-*
0 0oo oo—-4 i—4
8 O
0
m ino mco so
OS sosO so
88o o
m o•«*• m
m mt-» es
co -*
«* COos r^
OS Os
§o00 0
m m
0 0m in
Os*OsSO soin co
O OsCS -*
§<^>
^^^5
O 0CO CO
so r»t>- t^-OS Os
~* ~*
in m ines r-» t^
co O OsO CO COr— •"*" oo
O O OsCO OO t-N.
—H •— I ^H
8 O 0o o
m in mm o in-4 CO 1<
co os mso in m
---
888o o o
•n m inm m m
in in mr- cs r»
OO sO CO-4 O OSm co o
OS Os Os
O Q 0888
m m o^H
o o om m o
•»}« os esOs -H COo oo. co-
co so mi-l >-4 •— 1
ill
o m in
CO CO CO
CO Os Or- r- ooOs Os OS•— 1 «— 1 ~-4
m in m m mCM r» r>- r^ r~
co m o m in\O sD sO t^- r^-\o o «— i co co
Os Os OO »-H Osr^ i-- r^ oo i~«-
f-H •*• 4 •— 4 t^ •— 4
8 0 o o o0 O O O
m i/> m in om so oo cs in— 1 rf O in sO
cs co Tf" o min "^ ^ **}* co
o o o o oo o o o o0 O O 0 O
o o m m oso so so r^ co
m in in in mi-« t^ r^ r^ r>.
oo co co co oo\O **" — i Os sOSO CS OO CO OS
oo oo r^ r>- so
§§§§§
o o o o o^H •— 4 ^^ ^-4 »™4
88888
•i*1 i-» r>» t^ r-*•'f m in m inoo co so os es
co es o oo t^
•— t »~4 •— t ,
O O O O O80 o o oo o o o
m o o o o
CO "* "* TJ« TfX&fz-H cs co -r mco oo oo co oo*Os 0s Os Os Os•—I ~-( — 4 -+ *- <
• . »
mt^-
Rm
esCO
8
or»-eo
0CO
8o
mCO
mr>
CO•*m
sO
8o
o
oo
r^
r-4
SO
in
ooo
m•<*•
SOCO
Os
•—4
m m mr^ t^ h*
m o cosO O -Hin o os
-^ CO soCO CO t^^—4 ^.j ^ L|
X
$f-4
o o oo o o
in in ot^ m oso m o
TJ< oo cs
CS -^ ^-l
888o o o
o m oOs Os Of— (
in in mr^- t^- i^-
oo oo co
— 1 •— < — 4-« in os
\o in ^
§Q OO OO 0
in m o^^ *^ \^}
o o0 O
CM r^t-- csr^ os
CO -H
^ V
o oo oO 0
m t-»-r •<»•
r^ oo osco oo coOS Os Os
—1 -H — •
mr^
co
—4in
cot^.
Oo
0oo
SO
8o
oo,— 1
m
cot-4m
cs
o8
in./•vVtJ
Z%
R
OSt—l
B in in sdt^» co r»
• * • •co cs! m —i m10 O SO sC-f m in x j
R 'rfl rj< Jo-in co ["Hin cs 1 *^ 1 c^*toJ 'o-JI
f"Ow ^^t^COOS8 o d.-^ «"- 2™ .2 3 S s
" 3 « 1.2 G r? E
^ "£ n ?>*-* E? *\ ^O > O m •-<
° S -8 1 &
«y> 5P, r •=> «w> CU >-( ^,3 ft) "O
o c cn o> g
° > S "§ §0 u "8 S 6m M T3 JH "d
CM * 0 Jj g Ji. •:? o i? 5„ ^ «£i «!_(>. •*
4/>
8
S g 28 20X1 os in o IT
« ^ i-' ^2 £ ^S> ** v
•
o8
Ri ^^.
8•
cs oo! r- Q !7
^ 6 J5 JSo tf* v-/ Osl CO vvCO f"" — 4l • " _t< 2 ' voso Ja 1 st" s
-o
§ 1 <5 •« 5 cocs ^=, Ocs p.,
so S £v> s; c
o j= gw w EO) rt *^4« tSn
UH
VII-3
TABLE 3
COSTA REAL FIXED ASSETS AS OF 6/30/80
Category Value (not including
depreciation)
1. Lands and Easements $ 123,81*8.
2. Reservoirs and dams 1/51*^,073.
3. Pipelines and Pumping stations 5,782,152,
k. Chlorine stations 67,378,
5. Meters and accessories i*61,9i»9,
6. Buildings 161,1*56,
7. Machinery and equipment 117,970.
8. Office fixtures and equipment 10U,6tt2,
Total fixed Assets $10,072,865,
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
„ NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TABLE U
JUNE 30, 1980 and 1979
_ NOTE 4. LONG-TERM DEBT - BONDS:
The interest rates and terms of payment of the District's
long-term general obligation bonded debt'at June 30, 1980
"~ and 1979 are as follows:
JUNE 30
1980 1979
— Improvement District No. 1, 1957
issue, interest payable semi-
annually on March 1, and
__ September 1:
Due March 1 of each year through
1987 in varying amounts and rates
ranging from $55,000 to $70,000
- and from 3.85% to 4% $ 440,000 $ 495,000
Improvement District No. 2:
— Series No. 1, 1958 issue, interest
at 5% payable semi-annually on
March 1 and September 1:
__ Due March 1 of each year through
1988 in increasing amounts from
$15,000 to $25,000 150,000 165,000
~~ Series No. 2, 1961 issue, interest
at 4.5% payable semi-annually on
May 1 and November 1:
— Due May 1 of each year through
1991 in increasing amounts from
$15,000 to $25,000 230,000 245,000
~ Series No. 3, 1968 issue, interest
at 5% payable semi-annually on
January 1 and July 1:
— Due July 1 of each year through
1983 at $10,000 per year 40,000 50,000
_ Improvement District No. 3, 1961 issue,
Interest payable semi-annually on
March 1 and September 1. Containing
_ sinking fund requirements from 1980
through 1990 at increasing annual
amounts from $30,000 to $52,000
providing for retirement of fixed
— maturities when due and redemption
of callable bonds on their optional
maturity dates. Call provisions
apply to bonds maturing in 1991 in
increasing amounts over the life of
the issue.
HAROLD D. MICKEY
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
COSTA REAL MUN1CJJ7 L WATER DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TABLE k (con't.)
JUNE 30, 1980 and 1979
NOTE 4. LONG-TERM DEBT - BONDS (continied):
JUNE 30
1£80 1979
i — — "" -
Due March 1 of each year
through 1990 at $5,000 per
year, interest at 4.75% $ 55,000 $ 55,000
Due March 1, 1991 at 5% 558,000 558,000
Improvement District No. 4, 1961
issue, interest payable semi-
annually on June 1 and
December 1:
Due December 1 of each year
through 1990 in varying amounts
and rates ranging from $25,000
to $40,000 and 3.5% to 4.5% 380,000 405,000
TOTALS $ 1,853,000 $ 1,973,000
Principal due within one year $ 125,000 $ 125,000
Long-Term portion 1,728,000 1,848,000
TOTALS $ 1,853,000 $ 1,973,000
At June 30, 1980 and 1979, the District had $300,000 of
authorized but unissued construction bonds.
NOTE 5. LONG-TERM DEBT - NOTES:
JUNE 30
1980 1979
Note payable - Southwest Bank,
unsecured, payable $60,000
semi-annually plus 5 7/8%
interest, pipeline project $ 420,000 $ 540,000
Note payable - Southwest Bank,
unsecured, payable $50,000
semi-annually plus 6 1/4%
interest, interest in water
transmission line 450,000
HAROLD D. HIOKEY
AN ACCOUNTANCY
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
JUNE 30, 1980 and 1979
TABLE k (con't.)
— NOTE 5. LONG-TERM DEBT - NOTES (continued):
Note payable - San Marcos County
Water District, unsecured,
payable $20,705 annually plus
7 1/4% interest, purchase of
interest in water trans-
mission line
Note payable - NCR Corporation,
secured by computer, payable
$1,097 monthly including
principal and discount
interest
Less principal due in one year
TOTALS
JUNE 30
19.80 1979
207,045 207,045
65,817
1,142,862
269,493
873,369
747,045
140,705
606,340
NOTE 6. EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN:
The District has contracted with the Public Employees'
Retirement System to provide a retirement plan for all
full-time employees. The District's unfunded prior
service liability is approximately $10,000 at June 30,
1980 and $8,709 at June 30, 1979. The expense for pro-
viding retirement benefits under this plan for the year
ended June 30, 1980 was $19,960 and $14,463 for the year
ended June 30, 1979.
HAROLD D. MICKEY
AN ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
1
1
OO
cn
ocn
NO
LA
LA
OCMCM
O
PA
ps.
O
LA
O
NOr-.
oo
o-3-cn
o
o
co PS. —cn — PA
NO PS. PA
— PA cn
CO CM —CM O —
oLA
NO
ooPA
PS. LA fAcn-s- PA
-3- CM CM
NO — PAo cn p*.— CM
TA
o
-3-
p~.cnPA
-3- cn cnPS. co cnLA — fA
O NO LA
Cn LA CA
CMNO
CMOOPA
— oo — —
CDco
t£.
c_>
u
cn
cn
ococn
CM -3-co CMLA O
CMLA
CM
CM
CM
LA
OCM
LA
O
*- vO
LA
v£>
CO CO PS,
o cn PA
CM NO CA
PA CM —
_ CO — —
— CM•3- -3-CM CM
CA CM
OO —
LA
— NOPS. O
— LA
LA PA
CM LA
NO O CM
ONO OOO LA PS.
— PA Ocn i
co
PA
CM
CO
-3-
LA
PS. CM Ocno o
CM NO PS.
PA LA OO
LAOO —
CM
O LA NO
LAps?LAi— PS. cn
PA PA
-3--3-
NO"PACM
— CO — —
in
OPACM
NO
•t
LA
PS.
CO
PA
-3-PA
*LA
cn LA
PA O -3"CM CM
— CM PS.
PS. CM NO— cnco
— oo coCM —
PALAcn
ocr\-3-
OVD
OO
oir>
o:
< 00
O- PS.2: cnO ""
f\ LP\
L_ V
1^ • ffto_ L*S m
UJ pv.cc. cn^~i—•— io
<t _i
LU
CC. 0CO< cnt- —to
O
.
CO LA NO PS.
•^ PS. ^~ •—o cn • PS.• CM -on CM PA
NO NO LALA CM cn
CM PA CO CO
O LA NO OOCM -3- cn
LA J- CO
NO — OOO LA O
— "
LA PS. ps. vO
J- CA -LA-3- PA — CM«* » •»
LA CM CMo on cnO LA CMA •,
*~~ •""
m9>— in4-1 4-1
in — in4-1 — m
9) -Q <Cin 10 Oin '— — "o< _l +-> 0>
4J 4-» CC. Oc c —V V Ji i-U L. O 4J
L. L. .— M
cj cj o* cc
COPALA
*inp*^
0^
CO*
NOcn
^n*#.
LA
lf\
-^cn
oo1ACM^
^^|HM
^^f>
O
in
4-1
9)inin
,_
ID4-1
O
PS.- PS.NO PA on
CO NC OO•« » ••
PS. NO CMon o CMCM — «—
ft *
PA NO OO
LA CM —
•.AM
NO CM CMLA-3- CMLA -3- —
_"_*
— PS. PS,
O NO —
PS. NO PA«i « »
-3- — PAco on LAon NO —» «•~ ~-
in in9) 9)3 inc c4) &> a.9) X CCC UJ O
»•»
cn cn -Mc c n>
4J 4-1 O
ID «0 9)l_ 1- L.
9) 9) O-Q. a 0)O O 0
cnPAPAM
CO
NO
^^^_
LA
OOPS.
s«^
^^•vr^*onPA•»•
0)
c0)
CC
0)c
4-f
IDL.
0)
4-1
X
O CM COPA O CM
CO-3-4-
» » M
PA NO PS.PS, cn PS.NO LA
CO •— PS.LA — JT— NO LA« » *t
O PS. CMCA — »-LA — -3- •
CO — PS.cncn oCO CM NO
PS.CO cncn LA PA
PS. — NO
9)3c
0
0) in€£. 9)
at oc z
4-1 1 3
ID Cl_ 4-1 O
0) in >
<§-2!£1 0)C 4J 4-1oca>SK — X
CMo
-3-
LA
NO
ooCO^~
»
-3-
—
CO^->
|s^
•k
LA-3-PA
^<D
C *Q.•— ID(^
9)in cn
ID C
L. ^u u
— 5
cn^»
CM•t
^BLA-3-
NO*
00-3-cn
LAoo-3-
r^
ocn
ft
*m~CM
PA•
OO
^^4-1
L.
ctol_ 4-1a. c
•» ^4.) a.
(D 3— crO. LU
4J "D
9) CZ ID
OOCM
OO
PA
PS.
CO.3-PA
on
NO
^.
NO
NO
NO£J
CM
in9)in —C (Da> L.a. «)x cLU a>C3cn
C tO
4-1 •
(0 C
a> E0-T>0 <
PS. NOO JT
NO CM•» »
PS. CM
NO —
••» p^.
PA COLA-3-
* *.— CMcn —
LA cn-3- NOCM NO
cToCM —^->
co
*J3
XI
•— 4J
L. C
4J Vm E'— 4-1
O ID9>
<n L.
C 0)ID 4J
£ 5
«*•—•*
0)(A(Q
^"u
3a.
L.
V
4-1
5
inina>
^
CO
NO
PA
LA
CM
NO
NOPA
PA
CM
CO
LA
p^
CAPA
9)in
C
9)a.xLU
O)C
4-1IDL.
9)O.O
^^ID4-1
£
tit T
CHAPTER VIII.
FUTURE CAPITAL FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
Replacement Program - City of Carlsbad
The City of Carlsbad has identified 2k different pipelines
that have to be replaced within the next five years. They
represent an estimated replacement cost of $823,000., based
on current prices. (Table 6). With construction costs
escalating at 1% per month, it can be seen the foregoing
estimate will increase quite rapidly.
Replacement Program - Costa Real Municipal Water District
Most of the District's water system is relatively new, thus
replacement of old pipelines is not much of a problem.
However, the Costa Real Municipal Water District has identified
four major steel waterlines that have to be replaced. (See
Table 7) If these pipelines were to be replaced at today's
cost and existing sizes, this would amount to an expenditure
of approximately $3.5 million. Since these pipelines represent
the major source of water for the community, it would be
prudent to set up a funding plan to replace these lines in
the event of an accelerated deterioration due to cathodic
corrosion problems.
VIII-1
TABLE 6
CITY OF CARLSBAD
FIVE YEAR WATERLINE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE
Proposed
Street
Elmwood
Jefferson
Jefferson
Grand
Arland
Chinquapi
Redwood
Hemlock
Juniper
Cherry
Walnut
Jefferson
(between State
& Roosevelt)
.(behind Chamber
of Commerce)
Chestnut
Pine
Davis
Locust
Lineal
Feet
1,1*50
1,150
1,300
1,160
500
370
850
510
520
510
1*92
1*80
1*20
6UO
e
960
r
500
1,250
281*
670
550
Replacement
Size
12" 1 ine
10"
8"
12"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
12"
8"
8"
8"
8"
8"
Estimated
Cost/foot
$1*8.
1*0.
32.
1*8.
32.
1*8.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
,3.
32.
32.
32.
32.
32.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Est imated
Cost
$69,
kt,
M,
55,
16,
17,
27,
16,
16,
16,
15,
15,
13,
20,
1*6,
16,
1*0,
9,
21,
17,
,600.
,000.
,600.
,680.
,000.
,760.
,200.
,320.
.6UO.
,320.
,71*1*.
,360.
,i*UO.
,1*80.
,080.
,000.
,000.
,088.
,1*1*0.
,600.
TABLE 6 (con't.)
Proposed
Street
Palm
Roosevel t
Highland
Highland
Lineal
Feet
200
395
1*30
KOOO
Replacement
Size
8"
8"
10"
12"
Estimated
Cost/foot
$32.00
32.00
40.00
1(8.00
Estimated
Cost
$6,UOO.
12,61*0.
17,200.
U8,000.
Grand Total:16,591
15? Engineering
15| Contingency
TOTAL:
$622,592,
93,389,
107,397
$823,378,
VIII-3
jp?nn£tj t_4 WOODSIDE KUBOTA A ASSOCIATES. INC.-— """i^jjni
1 PROPOSI
COSTA REAL
1
PI
_L 1) Palomar Airport Road,
Rancho Santa Fe Road to
, ElCaminoReal
1_JL_
11
1
2) El Camino Real, Palomar
Airport Road to Kelly
Drive.JL
_1_
J_ 3) El Camino Real, Palomar
Airport Road to point
1.2 mi les south
1_L
1
1
_[ 4) Squires Dam Pipeline, El
Camino Real to Squires
Dam I
_L
1 x
1
» • •
1
You can see from the listing
1 line projects. Our basic re
-L multitude of other pipelines
"Master Plans" and the many
1 lines) in the future will al
TABLE 7 September 8, 1981
I
r\ n A r" TDRAFT
ED CAPITAL PROJECTS
OF
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
PELINE PROJECTS
3.5 miles of existing 27" diameter
steel pipe -- constructed in 1957-58;
this section will require replacement
to a larger size. Actual sizing will
be determined when land-use agencies
of our service area establish perma-
nent zoning and District can make a
final inventory of ultimate potable
water service needs.
3.2 miles of existing 20" diameter
steel pipe -- constructed in 1957-58;
this section will require replacement.
Pipe sizing will be evaluated after
City of Carlsbad - Water Department
and District determine ultimate water
requirements for City service area.
1.2 mile* of existing 20" diameter
steel pipe -- constructed in 1959;
this pipeline will require replacement
at such time its reasonable use has
been fulfilled. There is a possibility
its sizing may be changed in the event
the "Coastal Zone" land uses become
the permanent uses.
1.3 miles of existing 27" diameter
steel pipe -- constructed in 1961;
this pipeline will require replacement
at such time its reasonable use has
been fulfilled. In the meantime, the
pipeline will be paralleled by a
second supply line that will be a
part of the Squires Dam II expansion
program. '\
that we have set out only four major pipe-
ason for this lies in the fact that the
that are shown on our various approved
existing lines that will be replaced (steel
1 be accommodated at the "development"
KUBOTA* ASSOCIATES. INC. TABLE 7 (con' t. ) Septeiiiber 8, 19bl
Page 2
stages of the various properties. Uniquely, our District constructed
its arterial water system in the late 1950's and early 1960's to
accommodate the vast "drylands" area of the District. With intensive
urbanization coming as a result of extending public sewer service to
our agricultural areas, the land form is'changing dramatically,
resulting in the extensive relocation and replacement of our pipe-
lines. In fact, in several instances, our District has delayed
pipeline projects in hopes the alignment of future streets and
highways are established formally so we will not be saddled with
expensive utilities relocation expenses.
With this initial level of inventorying of our Capital projects, we
shall be working in earnest to bring the entire program to a formal
level of comprehensive planning. We are now working on the District';
last "Master Plan Study" and when the City of Carlsbad - Water
Department and the District decide on the ultimate needs of the City
service area, we will be ready tn complete the entire District-wide
Master Plan.
VIII-5
PUMPING
, 'There is sufficient hydraulic grade (978 - 935) from the
aqueduct, so there is virtually no requirement for pumping
within the entire service area. This has obvious advantages
in that it eliminates energy costs, capital costs for pump
stations, as well as the maintenance problems that are
affiliated with any mechanical device. However, there are
numerous pressure reducing stations that require maintenance
and replacement.
VIII-6
NEW CAPACITY
Planned Storage - Costa Real
1 .
2.
3.
U.
5.
6.
Facil Ity
Squi res Dam 1 1
1 .T.A.P. regulating reservoir
ID#2 reservoir
ID#3 reservoir
La Costa II reservoir
So. Aqueduct La Costa
Capaci ty
M.G.
326
5
1U.5
1.5
1 .5
Est iniated
Cost
$16,300,000
625,000
2,755,000
375,000.
375,000.
reservoir
TOTAL
1,200,000.
35U.5 or $21,630,000,
1088.52 ACFT
This added to the existing storage of 6U7.2 ACFT results in
a total anticipated storage of 1,735.52 ACFT of water.
Should the Health Department decide to restrict or eliminate
Squires I, this would reduce ultimate storage capacity to
1,135.52 ACFT which is slightly less than the required 1375
ACFT (21 days of average annual storage). It can be noted
in the foregoing analysis that Squires I and Squires II are
a very integral part of the service area's storage needs.
Should the Health Department remove Squires I from active
1. The T.A.P. Reservoir is to be shared 50| City, 50% Costa Real M.W.D.
VIII-7
service, this could accelerate the need for acquiring or
building additional storage to maintain the 3 week storage
capaci ty.
A study may be necessary to determine the economic practic-
ability of constructing a filter plant downstream of Squires
I If the Health Department determines that it is no longer
an acceptable filtered water storage reservoir.
TRANSMISSION LINES
Costa Real has approximately 75 miles of transmission and
distribution pipelines, ranging in diameter from 6" to 27".
The District is relatively undeveloped/ thus more pipelines
will have to be constructed to provide service for ultimate
development. Since the District's Capital Improvement
program is very generalized, cost extimates were not included.
However, it can be estimated that approximately 50 miles of
12" through 18" water mains will be necessary to complete
the primary system for the ultimate development of the
service area. In order to accurately estimate the magnitude
of this particular element, it would be necessary to completely
study the area. This would ' include a master water plan for
the entire service area, outlining total water demand by
service zone as well as the necessary pipelines and storage
facilities.
VIII-8
For the purpose of this study it will be assumed that an
equivalency of approximately 50 miles of 16" waterline will
be needed for ultimate development. Based on current prices,
a 16" waterline will cost approximately $60./ft. for a total
cost of $15.8 million. This would include about $1*50,000.
for the proposed Ik1' Elm Street line. In all probability,
the construction of these pipelines will be a combination of
developer/agency responsibility.
As previously mentioned, one of the critical factors in
planning a capital funding program is trying to determine
specifically what is needed and when, as well as who is
going to pay for it. If the proposed storage were to be
constructed at today's dollars, this would result in an
expenditure of $21,630,000. Obviously, this is not going to
happen and it will be necessary to program the construction
of pipelines and storage taking into consideration inflation
and cash flow.
VIII-9
CITY OF CARLSBAD
The City of Carlsbad Utilities and Maintenance Dept. has
developed a 5 year Capital Improvement and Replacement
program. As noted in Appendix A, part of this program
includes an allocation of $2,050,000. for it's share of a
joint operations facility. In addition, a study completed
in 1979 "Master Plan for Public Water System for the Northeast
Quadrant Water Service Area", identified storage and pipeline
requirements for the City of Carlsbad. This amounts to one
half of the cost of the Tri-agencies pipeline storage for
$625,000., plus approximately $5if7,000. for additional
pi pelines.
The foregoing Chapters have identified major facilities that
will be necessary for the ultimate development of the community
water plan. They are summarized as follows:
City of Carlsbad -
Faci15 ty Cost
Replacement Program (Table 6) $ 823,000
Storage (1/2 of T.A.P. Reservoir) 625,000
New pipelines 5U7,000
Joint use of Operations facility ' 2,050,OOP,
TOTAL $1*,01*5,000,
1. Water Utilities Fund
VIII-10
Costa Real Municipal Water District
Facility Cost
Pipeline Replacement Program (Table 7) $ 3,500,000,
Storage 21,630,000,
New pipeline construction 15,800,000,
TOTAL $UO,930,000
The foregoing Table indicates the community will be faced
with the funding of approximately $45,000,000. worth of
replacement and new facilities. It is also recognized that
a portion of these costs will be developer responsibility,
however, at this time it is impossible to identify the
developer's cost.
It should also be recognized the foregoing prices are based
upon 1981 dollars. Inflation will take it's obvious toll.
VIII-11
CHAPTER IX.
FINANCE
A critical issue is going to be who pays for these facilities
and how. A comprehensive financial management program has
to sustain not only the water utilities operation, but it's
capital funding needs as well. It is necessary to examine
not only water rates/ but all sources of revenues so they
may be appropriately integrated into the agency's cash flow.
Obviously, the main thrust of any program is to assess an
equitable charge to the benefiting user. Determining what
this charge will be and the amount of benefit, requires not
only a fiscal analysis, but policy guidance as well. Since
there is no one charge or system of charges that is the
answer to all funding problems, it is necessary to look at
as many sources as possible and then select those most
appropriate to the situation.
POSSIBLE FUNDING PLANS
A policy may be established wherein operations, maintenance,
and replacement costs be totally funded by the water user.
Currently, the agencies depreciate their facilities based
upon original installation cost, however, it is recognized
IX-1
the funds set aside based upon this method of depreciation
would be totally inadequate for future replacement. If this
method of funding replacements were to be implemented/ it
would be necessary to revaluate and consider the use of
replacement cost accounting in the establishment of a depreciation
schedule and replacement fund. This would obviously be a
radical departure from the current accounting system.
All capital improvements, other than maintenance and replacement/
could be funded from a combination of charges/ such as;
1. Developer contribution that is paid at the time
of filing a subdivision map.
2. Connection fees (capacity buy-in fee).
3. Annual acreage standby assessment.
U. Assessment District Bonds.
5. Revenue sharing/ i.e./ block grants.
6. Revenue Bonds.
7. Municipal lease back/Non Profit Corporation.
The above list of possible revenue sources for the funding
of the Capital Improvement program offers a means of distributing
the burden over as many beneficiaries as possible/ thus
increasing the chances for an equitable distribution of this
capital burden. The selection of the appropriate mix would
require a model study, taking into account the various
parameters as the policy making bodies see fit for their
IX-2
community. An analysis of this type could be updated on an
annual basis to insure that it reflects current community
thinking and needs. At the same time, it would offer a
means whereby the community could evaluate the effectiveness
of their water development program.
In an area that is fully developed, it can be argued all
revenue should be derived from the user, i.e., through the
water rates. This method has been used extensively and
proven to be effective. However, in a developing area, the
situation is more complex. For the most part, placing the
entire burden for system development upon the existing water
user could be prohibitive. Further, it would not be equitable
as the undeveloped land has value because of the availability
of water.
In order to overcome this inequity, the Legislature has
authorized a combination of charges that can be implemented
for this specific situation. It would appear appropriate
that in the undeveloped areas of the community, the use of a
capacity fee, an annual standby charge, along with an assessment
district, may be the most appropriate method of funding
Capital Improvements.
IX-3
MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 WITH 1915 ACT BONDS
The Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 differs from the 1911
Act principally in that assessments are made in advance of
doing the work. This Act can be used to acquire or install
most types of local improvements, including water mains,
pipes, conduits, tunnels, hydrants, and other necessary
works and appliances for providing water service. The
acquistion of water facilities may include plants, lands,
and rights-of-way located within or outside the boundary of
the municipality. The code also permits the acquistion of
use or capacity rights in public facilities, such as water
and sewer systems.
Bonds issued under the 1915 Act are secured not by separate
parcels of property as are 1911 Act Bonds, but by a Trust
Fund consisting of payments made by all property owners in
the District assessed.
This form of financing is becoming more widely accepted as
a means of replacing General Obligation Bonds for the
development of facilities in undeveloped areas.
It can be argued the expansion of the system, in developing
areas, should be totally funded by the developer/builder in
the form of a connection fee or developer contribution.
Developing the community infrastructure, I.e., water and
IX-i*
sewer systems/ etc., is becoming such a burden that it is
now a major cost item in the price of new housing. Policy
making bodies have the power to encourage or inhibit development
in the application of these charges.
REVENUE BONDS
The Revenue Bond law of 19U1 empowers any local agency to
finance a wide varity of revenue producing facilities through
the issuance of Revenue Bonds.
The Bonds are secured solely by a lien on the gross revenues
of the enterprise for which issued/ and such other funds as
may be described in the resolution authorizing their issuance.
Should the local agency determine to issue Revenue Bonds/
it's legislative body/ by resolution/ submits a proposition
of issuing Bonds to it's voters at an election held for that
purpose. This form of financing has been particularly
successful for large agencies providing water and sewer
service where the revenues derived from connection fees and
monthly service charges can be pledged to secure the debt
payment. However/ for smaller agencies the revenue may not
be sufficient to justify the issuance of this type of Bond.
IX-5
MUNICIPAL LEASE BACK - NON PROFIT CORPORATION
This form of financing had it's first major start in Los
Angeles County in the early 1950's. It was a rather radical
departure from conservative and traditional means of Municipal
finance. Tax payers and investment bankers opposed the
lease purchase agreements for two basic reasons. (1) They
felt it could promote unsound ventures which may undermine
Municipal credit. (2) Cost the taxpayers excessive Interest
when compared to General Obligation Bond charges.
In addition, there are some who argue that it bypasses voter
wishes, in that this type of financing can be done without a
vote of the people.
Should an agency decide to pursue this form of financing, it
would first establish a nonprofit corporation to build a
needed facility. The nonprofit corporation would issue
Bonds to raise sufficient funds to construct the facility.
The lease or rental payments, payable under the contract,
are assigned to the Bond holders as security for the Bond
payments. The use of this method of funding may become
popular for thosefaci1ities that cannot be funded through
the 1913/15 Act assessment, due to the nature of their use.
For example; there are certain facilities that cannot be
directly related to a particular area of benefit and, as
IX-6
such, would not be practical to use the Assessment District
proceedings. However, the Municipal Lease Back which, in
essence, is almost the same as a Revenue Bond would provide
funding for this type of facility. Charges could be levied
against the beneficiary of the service in proportion to
benefit.
STANDBY CHARGES
Revenue derived from the ad valorem taxes has traditionally
been the accepted method of paying for Bond debt. However,
it was soon recognized that this was not necessarily an
equitable means of assessing cost to benefit. There are
instances where large tracts of land, used for agricultural
purposes, may have an extremely low assessed value, but yet
demand a tremendous amount of water. On the other hand,
there could be very high value single family dwellings, with
little or no water demand, paying a disproportionate higher
share of the debt burden. In order to reduce this inequity,
the State Legislature enacted a law which gave water districts
the right to charge a standby assessment or availability
charge on all lands within the district. This charge is
based solely on a flat rate per acre and has no relationship
to the value of the land. The availability charge is a very
effective method of obtaining funds for a capital improvement
program.
IX-7
Since it Is the utility purveyor's responsibility to provide
service as needed, it then becomes necessary to develop a
system of charges that can be administered equitably for all
beneficiaries.
Should the current economic condition prevail for any period
of time, the development of an adequate funding program will
obviously be more difficult. The onetime tried and true
assumptions are no longer valid. The economy is too dynamic.
Constant updating of any forecast is mandatory. This situation
adds further emphasis to the necessity of long-range flexible
financing programs.
IX-8
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A
i .'.; i i .••,; .!!:;•;,;.••';.:.; :' r i ::,'i;u; i ;;;:I<I;L:;[ .............. -•
'" i ' !!.:,! I'OIKI :. HI II I I II -../nAII,1!! l.'ANlV I. I'AKKS I. Kl C_. I'K'OJl^CT^JJU . Ci 1
I'OLICL ('. UTILITY LLKVICLS CLMII.KP1'- 1 i' •' 'i i 1 IMI|VK:'-1 "'«•'-
I
I-'1''I I1 I I 111'1 /'!• 1 lvl 1 '•'•!I !•.'.'•'i -'-• I UL>'.-.»JI MVII | h i •. pioji-cl tons i i. t i, of the development of a bite to
I.K'.I'.I- tin- L>iv; L n I 01 i I'liu-n i Si ivied. Fnc.ilily of npprox iin.'jt c 1 y 37,500 S.F. and a
Lily f.irvi(.i: Ctulc-r to i i-pl >JL.«.- the t:xi i,l i ny-y.^i <) fiu.iliticj at ^05 Oak and 1166
l-.,:i. "Ihf City S<rvi«.i- Cint.r VAUJ 1 d include- f>,000 S.F. of office S|>ucc, 23,500 S.F.
of vjti i v |K>UM", .uul -,li(>|r, .iiui ^i.OOO S. (• . of outdoor i,toi\iye.
r-]f;;AL Yr.'vK
|'i;'.).!!-.l. I ('.111,: ';>-(< ;'' ]'M':I_ ?::'_ j«i:;y-.«.v _ in;! v J1.'! ] <i!!'i • {: i, TOJAI
I.AI-li.' 2,050,000 2,050,000
ijf :;]•', i.1 'juo.ooo ^00,000
CON!"i'i'llf !"K-ii 3,01'i,000 1,620,000 1?6,000 Ji,8lO,000
ijii:, :; 50,000 236,0',!. 236,0'^ 23f»,o'«D 53^,0/15 1,29^,180
I •
' in";/,} (.(jSF 2,100,000 C3'',o'ii 3.2l,n,n/.5 i .^(..o'lS 712,0^5 8,M,':,iDo
iSi;cr or run.:::
'.-.'ATfR FUND 2,050,000 2,050,000
''LNLRAL ! UNO 50,000 210,000 700,000 110,000 1,070,000
PUliLlC f-ACILI'l ItS 236,0'»5 2,010,0.4$ I,7^6,0'i5 712,0^5 ^,70^,180
FCD. KfV. SIIAHIIJG 1^0,000 5'iO,000 7^0,000
I
lili/'.i. FUNDS 2,100,000 636,0^5 3,250,0^5 1,056,0'iS '/12,0't5 8,55^,180
I.'iaiAL OPLilATllJo COSTS - ANNUAL O^LRATIKG HE VI HUE -
C.Oil'.'f.lL GOALS AMD f'l'.JLC T > V1IS
;JLT liY THIS
GOAL F-3 Provide Facilities to adequately h<jur.c C i t\
OBJECTIVE F-3'1 Atc^u'rc l'"id in center of City for new police facility.
OBJECTIVE F-3~3 Select architect and develop bui Idint]- and fin.incimj pioi|ram for
police facility and service yard.
WOODSIOE KUBOTA* ASSOCIATES. INC.APPENDIX B
DRAFT
August 21, 1981
PROPOSED PROJECTS OF
COSTA REAL MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
STORAGE RESERVOIRS AND
DISTRI BUT I ON-REGULATING RESERVOIRS
(1) SQUIRES DAM II Emergency Storage Reservoir -- to be
located adjacent to Squires Dam I.
Preliminary estimate of capacity is
1,000 acre-feet.
(2) T.A.P. REGULATING
RESERVOIR
Distribution Storage-Regulating Reservoir
at terminus of Tri-Agencies Pipeline.
Capacity: 5.0 MG
(3) I.D. NO. 2 -- "D"
RESERVOIR COMPLEX
Distribution Storage-Regulating Reservoir.
Capacity: 14.5 MG
(4) I.D. NO. 3 -- NORTHWEST Distribution Storage-Regulating Reservoir
OF PALOMAR AIRPORT
Capacity: 1.50 MG
(5) LA COSTA RESERVOIR II Distribution Storage-Regulating Reservoir
(to be located adjacent to La Costa
Reservoi r I).
Capacity: 1.50 MG
(6) SOUTH AQUEDUCT -- LA
COSTA -- HI RESERVOIR
Distribution Storage-Regulating Reservoir.
Capacity: 6.00 MG
There is currently underway engineering studies which will detail addi-
tional distribution storage-regulating reservoir needs. Upon the con-
clusion of these 'studies and a thorough reassessment of the City of
Carlsbad - Water Department service area, which will point the need for
additional storage in the City area, the Water District will be able to
make a complete integrated master plan for the entire 20,000-acre District
area and list more accurately the total water storage requirements on the
basis of some future time of "build-out".