Docstoc

DJC Comments Summary CCW Master Plan 3 5 07

Document Sample
DJC Comments Summary CCW Master Plan 3 5 07 Powered By Docstoc
					                             Summary
                                Of
                   Clear Creek Water Master Plan
NFR received a copy of Clear Creek Water Master Plan, document 2006, prepared by Pace
Engineering. It is still in draft form, until it is submitted to the Board of Clear Creek Community
Service District, on March 28th @ 8:00am. NFR has been invited to attend this presentation.

Due to the sensitivity of the draft document, it can not be duplicated and shred with each of you as
yet!!

This document is the vehicle that updates Clear Creek’s Master Plan (from 1997 to 2006). Report
contains results of investigation of the District’s water system, including supply, treatment, storage,
and distribution facilities.
The plan includes preliminary plans and cost estimates for the major capital improvements that are
recommended over the next 10 years.
NFR project is a major portion of planned growth. (approx. 1400 hook-ups over next 10 to 15 years.)
Below I have listed major topics/plans/projections and or relating / published information pertinent to
the annexation of NFR’s properties, into Clear Creek SOI – sphere of Influence.

                          Extracted Publish Data from “Draft Master Plan”
 Executive Summary
    The projected capitol improvements and funds required to meet the future demand will
      undoubtedly need to be adjusted in time depending on where and when development actually
      takes place.
   Service Area
    The existing service area boundary takes in an area of approximately 18,956 acres with in
      unincorporated areas of Shasta County.
   Water Supply & Demand
    New contract was issued in 2005 and has a 25-year term, has an annual Water Service
      contract of 15,300 acre-feet and is classified as an Irrigation/Municipal and Industrial
      contract. Primary raw water supply is obtained from Whiskeytown Reservoir-United States
      Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).
    In 2005 the district used 5,484 acre-feet of its contract amount including 3,361 acre-feet for
      agriculture and 2,123 acre-feet for M&I.
    In 2005, there were 2,645 service units (2,125-80% residential & 520-20% agricultural)
    In 2006, the district had 2696 service units (increase of 51 connections) with growth over the
      last 10 years averaging only 1%.
    The district has had an annual growth rate of 4% in delivered water and 1% in service units
      from 1996 through 2006. Trendlines over the last 10 years indicate that the district adds
      approx. 25 service units per year and that delivered water increases at a rate of approx. 150
      acre-feet per year. If the Trendlines continues, the district will reach its contract water
      allocation of 15,300 acre-feet by approx. 2067. If the 4% annual growth in demand continues
      the district will reach its water allocation by approx. 2030.


   Cost
    The existing Clear Creek CSD water system, including three wells, Muletown conduit-
     treatment plant and entire distribution system would have a 2006 replacement cost of approx.
     $110,000.000. This amounts to $41,200 per existing service unit.
  Growth in Demand
   The Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO) determines the sphere of influence
     boundary for possible future annexations to the district. The proposed new SOI boundary
     contains 28,200 acres, which is 50% larger than the districts existing service area boundary
     (SAB) of 19,000 acres. Expansion of the SOI by 800 acres will impact the ultimate water
     demand depending on the densities allowed.
   Growth is expected to increase substantially with the NFR projected where 1,400 residential
     lots are proposed along the eastern boundary; and Cottonwood Estates where 280 residential
     lots are proposed along the southern boundary of the district; and proposed West Ridge
     project of 270 service connections to the Centerville CSD (part of Clear Creek District).
Recommendations
   A number of improvements to the water treatment and distribution systems have been
     determined as part of the Master Plan. The timeline in which these improvements need to be
     accomplished is a function of the additional development in Clear Creek and Centerville
     CSD’s. If NFR, Cottonwood, and West Ridge projects proceed, then the district needs to plan
     for a major increase in demand within the next 10 years. The 10 year improvement plan is
     based on the proposed development occurring with in the next 10 years at an approx 4%
     annual growth rate in service units.
   Total estimated cost of recommended improvements and capacity charge basis, including
     contingency is $9,758,000. (see attached breakdown sheet)
   There are a total of 2,668 service units as of 2006. A total of 1,370 new service units may
     occur over the next 10 years at a growth rate of 25 service units per year plus 140 units per
     year from NFR. The 1,370 new service units represent 34% of total number of service units in
     CCCSD. Thus 34% of the costs of proposed improvements that equally benefit the existing, as
     well as future connections are assigned to the Capacity Charge unless improvement is
     considered critical to allow growth to assigned growth to occur, and then 100% of the costs
     are assigned unless noted otherwise. Cost assignment percentages are as follows: 100% = all
     costs assigned to growth in CCCSD
      75% = all costs assigned to growth
             w/ 25% assigned to CCSD
             w/ 34% split proportionately between existing and new service in CCCSD
             w/ 26% costs proportionately with CCSD a n desisting and new customers in CCSD
   Estimated cost of recommended improvements associated with assigned growth equals
    $7,525,000 or $5,490.00 recommended capacity charge.

JEFFERS’COMMENT: When is this paid? Can it be debt serviced?

   Supply
    The proposed NFR project may have an estimated MDD of 3.5 MGD when fully built out.
     Thus two large production wells each capable of providing 1,200 GPM would be required to
     meet the maximum daily demand (MDD). A firm capacity design criteria requires one
     additional well to be in standby, thus, a total of three wells need to be constructed. Ground
     water development is scheduled to begin once water supply issues are agreed upon between
     the City of Anderson, NFR and District

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: How much of the $5490 is offset by NFR providing 3 wells that will be
                  turned over to the district?
    The district should consider applying for an implementation grant from the State Water
     Resource Control Board to study the quality of groundwater in the district. This study is
     needed because the City of Redding and Bella Vista Water District have found unacceptable
     levels of arsenic, iron, and manganese in the ground water. In addition, the City of Redding’s
     Cascade Wells are known to have problems with dissolved gases including methane. The
     district needs to have confidence in the future availability and quality of its groundwater
     before it commits itself to such an alternative.

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: This is important! Lets discuss.

   Storage
    The district has 4 storage tanks with a combined capacity of 5.282 MG. approx. 2.5 MG is
      available for flow equalization and 2.5 MG is available for emergency storage. To meet future
      design storage capacity requirements, meet design flow and emergency storage capacities,
      almost double the current storage capacity is required. A 4 MG Clearwell Tank is the
      preferred for two reasons. Present piping configurations of the existing Clearwell allows it to
      float on the Muletown conduit, water does not flow through it, and consequently it provides
      no credit for disinfection contact time prior to the first customer at Need Camp. Additional
      time needs to be allowed for a reduction in the chlorine dose rates and still meet the
      disinfection contact time (CT) .The existing 1 MG Clearwell tank needs to be augmented is
      that the interior coal tar lining has failed above the water surface and the roof rafters have
      noticeable corrosion. The tank needs to be taken out of service and the interior recoated.
   Pump Station
    Eventually, four wells, one standby need to be constructed within the NFR project area. The
      proposed “East District Well Field” will be connected to the District’s main pressure zone
      through a pump station similar to the South District well field. The pump station needs to have
      three pumps plus one in standby in order to equal the firm capacity of the East District Well
      field”

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: The “Supply” section says three wells will be constructed. This section
                  says four wells. Which is it?

    It is recommended that the district secure a pump station form from NFR as part of the
     tentative map process and that project costs for the pump station be included in the capacity
     charge.

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: Where is the location of the pump station?

   Capital Improvement Capacity Charge
    The proposed 2006 master plan of improvements are itemized on the previously referenced
     attachment sheet. Improvements shown/listed are proportionately shared between existing and
     future service units within the district and the Centerville CSD.
    There are a total of 2,668 service units existing in 2006. A total of 1,370 new service units
     may occur over the next 10 years at a growth rate of 25 services units per year, plus 140 units
     per year for NFR. The 1,340 new service units represent 34% of the total number of service
     units in the CCCSD by the year 2017. Thus 34% of the costs of proposed improvements that
     equally benefit the existing, as well as future connections are assigned to the Capacity Charge
     unless the improvement is considered critical to allow growth to occur, and then 100% of the
     costs are assigned unless noted otherwise. In addition, improvements are recommended to also
     increase capacity at the WTP, but these costs are to be shared 75:25 with the Centerville CSD
    Construction of water distribution system within the proposed new service areas are the
     responsibility of the developer with the design reviewed, approved, and inspected by the
     District. Recommended system improvement construction activities, will be handle as public
     works projects. Funding of these projects comes from the Collected Capacity Charge fees.

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: Will prevailing wage be required with the public works projects?

    Having a one-size-fits-all Capacity Charge is simple to implement. The single lot developer
     who does not substantantially impact the system pays a Capacity Charge that is representative
     of the costs to bring water to a similar project. This method has historically provided
     reasonable basis for the Capacity Charge and is recommended to be continued for the Clear
     Creek CSD. The district’s current Capacity charge fee are:
            o ¾-inch meter is $4,485.00
            o The proposed 5/8-inch meter is $6,930, based upon the 10-year capitol
                improvements attributable to growth with in the district. (NFR’s proposed capacity
                charge)

JEFFERS’ COMMENT: I’m confused about what this is saying.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/13/2013
language:English
pages:4