LA Basin Final Water MSR 2006

FINAL REPORT MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW Water Service – Los Angeles Region Prepared for: Local Agency Formation Commission for Los Angeles County 700 North Central Avenue, Suite 350 Glendale, CA 91203 Prepared by: Dudek 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 December 2006 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1 2.0 AGENCY PROFILES.......................................................................................................................8 3.0 ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................................................22 3.1 Growth and Population.................................................................................................................22 3.2 Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies........................................................................................25 3.2.1 Water Supply/Demand....................................................................................................25 3.2.2 Water System Infrastructure..........................................................................................30 3.3 Financing Constraints and Opportunities...................................................................................44 3.3.1 Revenue Source and Funding.......................................................................................44 3.3.2 Revenues and Expenses Comparison..........................................................................44 3.4 Opportunities for Cost Avoidance and Shared Facilities..........................................................49 3.5 Management Efficiencies..............................................................................................................52 3.6 Rate Restructuring........................................................................................................................54 3.7 Government Structure Options....................................................................................................57 3.8 Local Accountability and Governance........................................................................................59 4.0 DETERMINATIONS.......................................................................................................................62 City of Beverly Hills.......................................................................................................................62 City of Burbank..............................................................................................................................63 City of Glendale.............................................................................................................................65 City of Los Angeles.......................................................................................................................67 City of San Fernando....................................................................................................................69 City of Santa Monica.....................................................................................................................70 Crescenta Valley Water District...................................................................................................72 Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon.......................................................................................74 December 2006 – Final Report i Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region ACRONYMS AF Acre foot AFY Acre feet per year BWP Burbank Water and Power CFS Cubic feet per second CIP Capital Improvement Plan (or Program) CPI Consumer Price Index CRA Colorado River Aqueduct CVWD Crescenta Valley Water District DHS California Department of Health Services DWR California Department of Water Resources EPA Environmental Protection Agency FMWD Foothill Municipal Water District GPD Gallons per day GPCD Gallons per capita per day GWP Glendale Water and Power IRP Integrated Resources Plan LAA Los Angeles Aqueduct LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LAFCo Local Agency Formation Commission LCID La Canada Irrigation District MCL Maximum contaminant levels MEA Master Environmental Assessment MG Million gallons MGD Million gallons per day MSR Municipal Service Review NA Not Applicable NP Not Provided SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SF Square foot SMURRF Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility SWP State Water Project ULARA Upper Los Angeles River Area VOC Volatile Organic Compounds, including trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) December 2006 – Final Report ii Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Los Angeles Region Municipal Service Review study area encompasses a broad area extending from the San Fernando Valley in the north to the coastal areas, including Santa Monica to the west and San Pedro to the south. This area overlies multiple groundwater basins, both adjudicated and non-adjudicated. Land use in the study area is characterized by urban development, with a predominance of residential and commercial/industrial uses. The area is served by eight public water agencies as well as some private water companies. Private water companies and water mutuals are not under LAFCo purview. Water supply for this area includes a combination of local groundwater, imported water, water from the eastern Sierras, and recycled water. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS 1. Growth and Population The Los Angeles study area has an estimated population of 4.3 million per SCAG 2004 projections. Growth through 2025 is expected to be slow to moderate with an average annual growth rate of approximately 0.6%. This would yield approximately 15% growth over the next twenty years, which is less than the overall expected growth rate for Los Angeles County. Most agencies stated that their service areas were built-out and growth would come from infill and redevelopment. Redevelopment that replaces former single family housing with multi-family housing is not expected to result in increased water demands. The estimated water use for a single family home in the Los Angeles area is 350 gallons per day versus 240 gallons for a multi-family residential dwelling. 2. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies Water supply for the region is provided through a combination of imported water, local groundwater, water from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley in the eastern Sierras, and recycled water. The study area overlies nine basins: San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, Eagle Rock, Hollywood, La Brea Sub-area, Santa Monica, Central and West Coast. The San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, and Eagle Rock basins are adjudicated and are part of the Upper Los Angeles River Area. The Central and West Coast Basins are also adjudicated; the other three are not and no sustainable yield or pumping limitations have been established. Currently water from the West Coast Basin is not being used in the study area. Each of the cities and special districts holds groundwater rights. Depending on their current infrastructure and demand, they are able to use this resource to meet all or a percentage of demand with imported and recycled water used to supplement supply. Most of the municipalities are planning for new wells or the rehabilitation and improvement of existing wells and treatment/storage facilities. December 2006 – Final Report 1 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Groundwater quality is a critical concern. The study area includes four Superfund sites in the San Fernando Valley as well as MTBE contamination in the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin. Additionally, MTBE contamination was recently found in the Verdugo Basin. The cities have reached agreements and are receiving financial support for the design, construction and operation of water treatment facilities. Chromium-VI was recently found in the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins; new regulations are expected in 2006 which will guide the cities in determining future treatment requirements and technology upgrades. Imported water is purchased directly from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) system. Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fernando and Santa Monica are all Metropolitan members; the Crescenta Valley Water District purchases imported water through the Foothill Municipal Water District. Recycled water is produced by treatment plants in Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles and Santa Monica. It is available in a number of areas in the study area and is used for landscape irrigation, power plant cooling, industrial processes, and sanitary uses in some commercial buildings. Overall, water supply is adequate to meet the future needs of the region provided groundwater treatment continues and imported water remains available. The agencies are collaborating on groundwater management and conjunctive use programs that will allow them to effectively maximize local resources while ensuring the sustainability and quality of the groundwater basins. All of the agencies have Capital Improvement Programs that are being implemented based on available funding. 3. Financing Constraints and Opportunities The cities are operating their water utilities as an enterprise activity such that revenues are expected to cover all water utility related expenses. However, escalating costs associated with personnel and benefits as well as cost increases for capital improvements and water purchases represent common financing constraints. Rate stabilization is a priority, and the agencies are not always able to pass on the full incremental cost increase within a given year. Some of the agencies are using financing mechanisms, such as loans and bonds to finance major capital improvements. Others are using a pay-as-you-go approach. Grant funding has been secured for some major projects and studies. December 2006 – Final Report 2 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 4 and 5. Cost-Avoidance Opportunities and Opportunities for Shared Facilities Most agencies are avoiding future costs through maximizing the use of local resources and limiting use of imported supply. The agencies each have planning documents that enable them to efficiently plan for operations and future system improvements. Agencies are sharing facilities where appropriate, particularly in regards to emergency intertie connections and recycled water. 6. Management Efficiencies The agencies demonstrated a number of methods for achieving management efficiencies including performance measurements and the use of strategic plans and objectives accompanied by work plans. 7. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring Rate structures in use include both flat and tiered; several of the cities have increased rates within the past few years or are considering a rate increase. A comparison of rates based on a 5/8” meter and water usage of 20 hundred cubic feet indicate that they are within an acceptable range. Waterworks District #21 has the highest rates in the study area. Several of the cities include a water adjustment charge which covers the cost of water purchases and groundwater production. 8. Government Structure Options Some agencies are providing service to connections outside of their boundaries. Out of agency agreements that were in place prior to January 1, 2001 do not require LAFCo approval per Government Code §56133 (e). There are overlapping boundaries and service areas between the Crescenta Valley Water District and City of Glendale, and the Crescenta Valley Water District and the La Canada Irrigation District (LCID). The CVWD noted that there would be benefit from undertaking a study to determine the most cost-effective, efficient plan for service in the overlapping areas. Benefits may include cost avoidance and shared facility opportunities with the City of Glendale/CVWD; shared water distribution and water storage facilities with the CVWD/LCID; and local partnership or reorganization of service providers for rate restructuring opportunities. A detailed feasibility study would need to be completed in order to analyze all aspects of potential reorganizations and to determine specific areas where customers will receive significant service and cost benefits. It is recommended that the three water agencies fund a feasibility study in preparation for a comprehensive sphere of influence update, including clarification of service areas and possible reorganizations. December 2006 – Final Report 3 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 9. Local Accountability and Governance The cities and special districts are locally accountable and demonstrating good governance practices. All of the agencies have websites used for public notice as well as dissemination of information on water service and conservation. Following is a map of the Los Angeles region and a schematic depicting the water supply for the study area. December 2006 – Final Report 4 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region SAN FERNARDO LOS ANGELES BURBANK GLENDALE 405 5 WEST HOLLYWOOD COVIN BEVERLY HILLS SANTA MONICA 60 CULVER CITY INDUSTRY 110 CO 605 CO 105 CO 91 CO Los Angeles Legend MSR Area City Boundaries LLAAFFCCOO MSR area 1:365,000 Local Agency Formation Commission for Miles Los Angeles County D:\GIS\mxd\msr\la_msr.mxd 0 2 4 8 July 19, 2006 December 2006 – Final Report 5 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region December 2006 – Final Report 6 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region NOTE In the following service review report, the abbreviations NP (Not Provided) and NA (Not Applicable) have been used in some charts and figures. During the service review process all agencies were contacted and all agencies were sent a Request for Information (RFI). In instances where complete data was not supplied in response to the RFI, agencies were called. A diligent effort was made to obtain adequate information on each agency, whether directly or through public information sources. The lack of data in these instances does not materially detract from the cumulative conclusions of the report. In instances where NA has been used, the specific information was not applicable to the agency due to size, service area or services provided. December 2006 – Final Report 7 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 2.0 AGENCY PROFILES The Los Angeles Municipal Service Review (MSR) study area overlies a significant portion of the adjudicated Upper Los Angeles River Area – the watershed drainage area tributary to the Los Angeles River – and its four groundwater basins: San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo and Eagle Rock. The central and southern portions of the MSR study area overlie the La Brea Subarea and the Hollywood, Central and West Coast Groundwater Basins. Water sources for the area include local groundwater, imported water from the State Water Project and Colorado River, surface and groundwater from the eastern Sierras, and recycled water. The region is generally considered built-out, with infill and redevelopment occurring in most areas. The eight public water agencies providing water service in the study area are shown below in Table 2.1 – Los Angeles Region Water Agencies. Summaries, profiles and service area maps of the individual agencies follow. Table 2.1 – Los Angeles Region Water Agencies Los Angeles LAFCO Water District Service Review Agencies December 2006 – Final Report 8 retaW citsemoD liateR retaW elaselohW tnemtaerT retaW retaW delcyceR LOS ANGELES REGION 1. City of Beverly Hills ● ● 2. City of Burbank ● ● ● 3. City of Glendale ● ● ● 4. City of Los Angeles ● ● ● 5. City of San Fernando ● ● 6. City of Santa Monica ● ● ● 7. Crescenta Valley Water District ● ● 8. Los Angeles County Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon ● ● – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills The City of Beverly Hills provides water service to the entire city as well as a portion of neighboring West Hollywood. The West Hollywood service area is bounded by Doheny Drive to the west, Sunset Boulevard to the north, Flores Street to the east, and Beverly Boulevard to the south. Beverly Hills covers approximately 5.69 square miles and the area served within West Hollywood is approximately 0.57 square miles. The City relies on imported water for approximately 90% of its supply, with the Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region remainder provided by local groundwater from the Hollywood Basin. Recycled water is not available within the City. The West Hollywood water demand is approximately 12% of the City’s total demand. City of Burbank – Burbank Water and Power Burbank Water and Power (BWP), established in 1913, supplies water throughout the city with a service area of approximately 17.16 square miles. Water sources include groundwater from the San Fernando Basin (26%), imported water purchased from Metropolitan (70%), and recycled water from the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant (4%). Groundwater quality is a critical issue; treatment is currently provided at the Valley/Burbank Operable Unit. City of Glendale – Glendale Water and Power Glendale Water and Power (GWP) was established in 1914 through the purchase of four large private water companies. The City of Glendale covers approximately 30.6 square miles. GWP provides water service to a majority of the area, with the Crescenta Valley Water District serving about 2,300 connections within Glendale. Water sources include imported water purchased directly from Metropolitan (69%), local groundwater from the San Fernando and Verdugo Groundwater Basins (27%), and recycled water produced at the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (4%). Groundwater is treated at the Glendale Water Treatment Plant and the Verdugo Park Water Treatment Plant. City of Los Angeles – Department of Water and Power The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) provides retail water service throughout the City of Los Angeles as well as portions of West Hollywood and Culver City, and minor areas adjacent to the Los Angeles City limits. The municipal water system was created in 1902 and is now the largest municipally-owned utility in the country. LADWP’s service area is approximately 461 square miles with 699,600 water service connections. Water sources include local groundwater (16%) from the Central and West Coast Basins and the Upper Los Angeles River Area (San Fernando, Sylmar and Eagle Rock Basins); the Los Angeles Aqueduct and water from the Mono Basin/Owens Valley (58%); imported water purchased from Metropolitan (26%); and recycled water. Future supply may include water transfers and seawater desalination. Groundwater treatment in the San Fernando Valley is provided through the North Hollywood Operable Unit and the Pollock Wells Treatment Plant. City of San Fernando The City of San Fernando, which is surrounded by the City of Los Angeles, provides water service to approximately 5,000 connections within a 2.42 square mile area. San Fernando relies on groundwater from the Sylmar Basin (80%) and imported water purchased from Metropolitan (20%). Recycled water is not available within the City. December 2006 – Final Report 9 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica covers 8.3 square miles and is surrounded on three sides by the City of Los Angeles with the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City’s water sources include local groundwater from the Santa Monica Basin (10%), imported water purchased from Metropolitan (88%), and recycled water (2%). Groundwater quality has been impaired by the presence of MTBE, requiring new treatment facilities in two well fields. – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District (CVWD), formed in 1950, provides retail water service to 4.2 square miles of unincorporated area in La Crescenta and Montrose, as well as portions of the Cities of Glendale and La Canada Flintridge. The District’s water sources include groundwater from the Verdugo Basin (62%) and imported water (38%) provided by the Foothill Municipal Water District (a Metropolitan Water District member agency). The District also provides wastewater collection, which is transferred to the City of Glendale and ultimately treated and disposed of by the City of Los Angeles. Recycled water is not available. Groundwater is treated at the District’s Nitrate Reclamation Facility. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Los Angeles County Waterworks District #21 provides retail water service to 247 connections in Kagel Canyon, an unincorporated area northwest of the Cities of Los Angeles and San Fernando. District #21’s service area is approximately 0.2 square miles. In the past the District was supplied by three groundwater wells and an emergency interconnection with the City of Los Angeles, which was regularly used to provide water for blending in order to meet drinking water standards. Waterworks District #21, LADWP and Glendale have entered into an agreement which provides for a reliable water supply to the area. December 2006 – Final Report 10 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region SAN FERNARDO LOS ANGELES BURBANK GLENDALE 405 5 WEST HOLLYWOOD COVIN BEVERLY HILLS SANTA MONICA 60 CULVER CITY INDUSTRY 110 CO 605 CO 105 CO 91 CO Los Angeles Legend MSR Area City Boundaries LLAAFFCCOO MSR area 1:365,000 Local Agency Formation Commission for Miles Los Angeles County D:\GIS\mxd\msr\la_msr.mxd 0 2 4 8 July 19, 2006 December 2006 – Final Report 11 City of Beverly Hills Agency Information Service Area Information* 455 North Rexford Drive Service Area 6.26 sq mi Address: Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Population Served: 43,910 Julie Kahn, Community Outreach Projected Population: Contact: Manager 2010 44,311 Phone: (310) 285-1024 Fax: (310) 278-6682 2015 45,149 Email/Website: jkahn@beverlyhills.org 2020 45,529 www.beverlyhills.org 2025 46,768 Type: Retail Water 2030 47,531 * includes West Hollywood service area System Information No. of Employees: 25 No. of Connections per Employee 423 Average Daily Demand (MGD) 11.8 mgd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NP Miles of Pipe: 170 No. of Pump Stations: 11 No. of Pressure Zones: 13 Storage Capacity 43.2 mg Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $18,794.3 Expenses: $22,158.2 Reserves: $14,556.5 CIP: $25,435.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf, inside city) Meter Chg $9.43 Water Chg: $42.20 Monthly Bill: $51.63 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic & 8,674 1,913 0 10,587 Commercial Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total 8,674 1,913 0 10,587 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 11,918 13,380 13,380 13,380 13,380 Groundwater* 1,362 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 Total 13,280 14,880 14,880 14,880 14,880 *Hollywood Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential 9,265 9,705 9,888 9,972 10,243 Comm/Ind. 2,318 2,365 2,410 2,429 2,496 Municipal 351 342 348 351 361 Other 73 68 70 70 72 Unaccounted for 1,273 1,189 1,212 1,222 1,255 Total 13,280 13,668 13,927 14,044 14,426 December 2006 – Final Report 12 City of Burbank – Burbank Water & Power Agency Information Service Area Information 164 West Magnolia Blvd. Service Area 17.16 sq mi Address: Burbank, CA 91502-1720 Population Served: 106,739 Bill Mace, Asst. General Mgr-Water Projected Population: Contact: Systems 2010 110,391 Phone: (818) 238-3550 2015 114,043 Email/Website: http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/ 2020 117,696 2025 121,648 Type: Retail Water 2030 125,000 System Information No. of Employees: 321 (entire water and electric department) No. of Connections per Employee 83 Average Daily Demand (MGD) 20.2 mgd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 33.4 mgd Miles of Pipe: 276 No. of Pump Stations: 17 – potable, 4 - recycled No. of Pressure Zones: 3 + 10 smaller hillside zones Storage Capacity 52.7 mg Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $20,504.0 Expenses: $17,937.0 Reserves: $8,473.0 CIP: $5,574.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) - FY 06-07 Meter/Demand Quantity/Cost $11.64 $26.20 Monthly Bill: $37.84 Chg Adj Chg: Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 25,858 0 0 25,858 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 54 0 0 54 Other 726 0 0 726 Total 26,638 0 0 26,638 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 17,800 19,160 19,570 20,100 20,560 Groundwater* 6,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 12,500 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 1,100 2,800 2,850 2,950 3,100 Total 25,400 34,460 34,920 35,550 36,160 *Upper Los Angeles River Area – San Fernando Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential/Comm/Inst 22,500 24,260 24,770 25,500 26,160 Landscape/Irr/Power 1,100 2,800 2,850 2,950 3,100 Other – GW Rechg 1,800 7,400 7,300 7,100 6,900 Total 25,400 34,460 34,920 35,550 36,160 December 2006 – Final Report 13 City of Glendale – Glendale Water & Power Agency Information Service Area Information 141 N. Glendale Avenue, 4th Floor Service Area 30.6 sq mi Address: Glendale, CA 91206 Population Served: 201,600 Contact: Raja Takidin Projected Population: Phone: (818) 548-3906; fax (818) 240-4754 2010 207,200 rtakidin@ci.glendale.ca.us 2015 211,220 Email/Website: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/ 2020 215,200 Type: Retail water 2025 219,000 System Information No. of Employees: 71 No. of Connections per Employee 457 Average Daily Demand (GPCPD) 143 gpcpd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 45 mgd Miles of Pipe: 378 No. of Pump Stations: 28 No. of Pressure Zones: 7 Storage Capacity 185 mg Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $33,926.0 Expenses: $26,840.0 Reserves: $8,302.9 CIP: $14,893.9 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg $7.15 Water Chg: $40.41 Monthly Bill: $47.56 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 29,077 0 0 29,077 Commercial 3,634 0 0 3,634 Recycled 159 0 0 159 Other 184 0 0 184 Total 33,054 0 0 33,054 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 24,153 21,889 23,136 24,846 26,625 Groundwater* 8,657 9,925 9,925 9,925 9,925 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 1,627 2,010 2,030 2,050 2,050 Total 34,437 33,824 35,091 36,821 38,600 *Upper Los Angeles River Area –Verdugo Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential 24,278 25,025 25,772 26,520 27,270 Comm/Ind. 4,927 5,401 5,875 6,349 6,822 Landscape/Irr 493 494 496 498 500 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total 29,698 30,920 32,143 33,367 34,592 * Includes recycled water service connections December 2006 – Final Report 14 City of Los Angeles – Department of Water & Power Agency Information Service Area Information 200 N. Main Street, Room 1500 Service Area 464 sq mi Address: Los Angeles, CA 90012 Population Served: 3,955,429 Sarai Bhaga, Senior Administrative Projected Population: Contact: Analyst 2010 4,099,389 Phone: (213) 485-8787; Fax (213) 687-8213 2015 4,157,727 Email/Website: sbhaga@cao.lacity.org 2020 4,215,380 www.ladwp.com 2025 4,270,520 Type: Retail water 2030 4,323,307 System Information No. of Employees: NP No. of Connections per Employee NP Average Daily Demand (GPCPD) 155 gpcpd Maximum Day Demand (GPCPD) NP Miles of Pipe: 7,200 miles No. of Pump Stations: 79 No. of Pressure Zones: NP Storage Capacity NP Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $1,469,199.8 Expenses: $1,126,403.6 Reserves: $342,796.2 CIP: $496,651.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg -0- Water Chg: $43.62 Monthly Bill: $43.62 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 656,490 0 4,582 661,072 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 40 0 0 40 Other 15,710 0 0 15,710 Total 676,240 0 0 676,822 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 178,550 254,050 249,550 273,550 292,550 Groundwater* 106,000 106,000 106,000 106,000 106,000 LA Aqueduct 393,500 276,000 276,000 276,000 276,000 Recycled 1,950 16,950 19,950 21,950 26,950 Seawater Desal. 0 0 13,500 13,500 13,500 Water Transfers 0 30,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 Total 680,000 683,000 705,000 731,000 755,000 *Upper Los Angeles River Area – San Fernando and Sylmar Basins; Central Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential 429,000 442,000 458,000 478,000 496,000 Comm/Ind. 139,000 145,000 149,000 153,000 156,000 Government 43,000 44,000 44,000 45,000 45,000 Non-revenue 48,000 50,000 52,000 55,000 57,000 Total 659,000 681,000 703,000 731,000 754,000 December 2006 – Final Report 15 City of San Fernando Agency Information Service Area Information 117 Macneil Street Service Area 2.42 sq mi Address: San Fernando, CA 91340 Population Served: 24,958 Contact: Ron Ruiz, City Administrator Assistant Projected Population: Phone: (818) 898-1237; Fax (818) 361-7631 2010 25,607 Email/Website: rruiz@ci.san-fernando.ca.us 2015 26,042 http://www.ci.san-fernando.ca.us/ 2020 26,471 2025 26,883 Type: Retail water 2030 27,277 System Information No. of Employees: 13 No. of Connections per Employee 385 Average Daily Demand 3.34 mgd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 5.0 mgd Miles of Pipe: 59 No. of Pump Stations: 3 No. of Pressure Zones: 1 Storage Capacity 9 mg Financial Information (FY 2004-2005) (in thousands) Revenues: $2,730.0 Expenses: $2,321.0 Reserves: $3,154.0 CIP: $410.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg $12.17 Water Chg: $23.85 Monthly Bill: $36.02 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 5,000 0 0 5,000 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total 5,000 0 0 5,000 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 800 800 800 800 800 Groundwater* 3,255 3,255 3,255 3,255 3,500 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 Total 4,055 4,055 4,055 4,055 4,300 *Upper Los Angeles River Area – Sylmar Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential/Comml 3,660 3,773 3,799 3,784 3,766 Ind Landscape/Irr 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3,660 3,773 3,799 3,784 3,766 December 2006 – Final Report 16 City of Santa Monica Agency Information Service Area Information 1414 4th Street, Suite 250 Service Area 8.3 sq mi Address: Santa Monica, CA 90401 Population Served: 88,500 Contact: Janet L. Shelton, Budget Manager Projected Population: Phone: (310) 458-8276; Fax (310) 393-6142 2010 90,100 Email/Website: janet-shelton@santa-monica.org 2015 90,400 http://santa-monica.org 2020 90,800 2025 91,200 Type: Retail Water 2030 91,500 System Information No. of Employees: 52.2 No. of Connections per Employee 326 Average Daily Demand (MGD) 144 gpcpd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NP Miles of Pipe: 236 miles No. of Pump Stations: 3 No. of Pressure Zones: 3 Storage Capacity 40 mg Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $13,667.0 Expenses: $15,801.0 Reserves: $3,152.0 CIP: $1,806.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg $5.68 Water Chg: $24.58 Monthly Bill: $33.29 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 16,115 0 0 16,115 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 9 0 0 9 Other 812 0 0 812 Total 16,936 0 0 16,936 Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 13,196 12,636 4,006 4,006 4,006 Groundwater* 1,406 1,406 10,036 10,036 10,036 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 336 560 560 560 560 Total 14,938 14,602 14,602 14,602 14,602 *Santa Monica Basin Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential 9,775 10,360 10,880 11,425 11,996 Comm/Ind. 3,410 3,580 3,760 3,950 4,150 Landscape/Rec 410 430 445 460 475 Inst/Gov 610 630 650 670 690 Other 430 450 470 495 520 Total 14,635 15,450 16,205 17,000 17,831 December 2006 – Final Report 17 Crescenta Valley Water District Agency Information Service Area Information 2700 Foothill Boulevard Service Area 4.2 sq mi Address: La Crescenta, CA 91214 Population Served: 38,500 Contact: Dennis A. Erdman, General Manager Projected Population: Phone: (818) 248-3925 2010 38,900 Email/Website: derdman@cvwd.com 2015 39,000 http://www.cvwd.com 2020 39,700 2025 40,000 Type: Retail Water 2030 40,500 System Information No. of Employees: 31 No. of Connections per Employee 260 Average Daily Demand (MGD) 4.78 mgd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 7.54 mgd Miles of Pipe: 88 No. of Pump Stations: 16 No. of Pressure Zones: 11 Storage Capacity 17.5 mgd – 14 sites Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) CIP Revenues: $7,444.8 Expenses: $7,065.4 Reserves: $2,391.9 $2,000.0 Exp: Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg $11.00 Water Chg: $53.11 Monthly Bill: $64.11 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 5,745 0 2,328 8,073 Agriculture 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 Total 5,745 0 2,328 8,073 Supply Information (AF/Yr) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 1,993 2,553 2,841 3,144 3,463 Groundwater* **3,310 3,100 3,100 3,100 3,100 Surface 0 0 0 0 0 Recycled 0 0 0 0 0 Total 5,303 5,653 5,941 6,244 6,563 *Upper Los Angeles River Area – Verdugo Basin; ** 3,294 AF/yr adjudicated right + 18 AF from Glendale adjudicated right Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential 4,300 4,475 4670 4,850 5,050 Comm/Ind. 200 210 225 250 1,300 Landscape/Irr 150 280 300 350 270 Inst/gov 140 180 200 220 400 Groundwater Rchg 194 194 194 194 194 Flushing/Sys Loss 365 341 341 356 377 Total 5,350 5,680 5,930 6,220 6,531 December 2006 – Final Report 18 DUNSMORE C U A FR DE REIC VA K ST O B A P M V W F H R M L U E V D L A M E S R E A C I Y C E L R K O V T U U SD N M D A R V S R L R E E S U T Y I T S 3 T I L E G N A 4 T A S T T V R N 0 I T T T P O 0 T N A Y A E M EN W R R O Y KR A A V V E A NEW R Y RO K IS 3 S O T B M M 3 3 4 02 0 64 T 21 E S R AV 9 3 U A O H S F A T N 0 9 E R R A N E L E T 0 C Y T R F NI EH I 3 LL I A V T L A A R A I W 3 I N B R M V E T 3 M V 0 A Y A 3 M O T N O 0 A E 0 L M L S S U H W AV A - S 0 N S A E N I T E E Y B T H T RAM ALY ND N O L L R N I N F N I V K W O E A P B M G RY A L DNA VA O E A I L A T N R A Y A L M D 50 00 R T R N F R VA D V S O T T E R R A L S H L O A U N A P S A AV A I T - L O C M N O U O T N E CH R V T K A Y S H G C M K N Y U L L I A E T H E L U R S R A S I V C L I A R H Y RE P T A YL VA L S A C A L D T L A N V V N EP YL NNS NIA AV 3 R T A S D AV 1 F E PE N NSYLV AV A ANI H 84 00 B AV H T 9 A Q V A P U E A E A IL V 9 I A C A E R N V L L S L A Y R L O L M E A T M FV A S N M D Y AVER O L L 3 A A N O O U 1 P A 3 S C N 0 N S N A B T 1 T 0 A T A Y T O 0 A R PARHAM M A A LC E M V UO D 0 V AV M LC OUD A A V V I C CLO DU A T N I A 3 S E A 0 I R E OURN F OR XB B C T O O N A P V A 9 H R C H K I 9 F O R L R U S G L R O M R D ET E O R O A C O R E E O S I R O S M A L A T S A R R L I U S T H S A H A O D I T 3 V P N V M N T V O W R T H T T 0 E O D I R L I G L C N R O 0 U G I A A G E IN D N C U N S C 0 E R N S E N A E T H T D E V R S I R MAR E A LL DE S V T VA R AR M DS ELL E AV H I Y E I S D O T T A F F G 4800 T S P A V H M R T A M A I A E A E R R O N D D A M M 2 T L K 9 U 2 O O R A R N W L O 9 0 N S U I M N Y H A N Y 0 0 A N T Y N V 0 T A R P S V T 2 D L A W 9 D R A I VA GLE W N 0 AV OO D N K 0 2 R R L 8 D R P 9 T I D A F P I 0084 D 00 51 D H 9 P Y N A V R A R G A E I W E N A R A R E DY D E R ST R S E N YD RE V Y A 2 2 M P RD T L 8 C 8 I I S N T 0 O 0 A E E ST 0 AL O 0 E W C N S ON A V E R Y AL C N NEC SER AT C AV RESCENTA W S F AV I 4700 F S R A A 100 5 0052 C P B P C L A I I R N E E T I L D V R I L N I C A B R R G E O R S I E O L O A O V M F L E V - C R T I O R R V O L S C A W L O K A N R S V U K E A T M A N N M H A P H I T AV VA K L V D T V T P I I B I P L N A N L A N A V A N I I G T R I L L N N V T E V D R V I I C I O E E S E M W R D E OO F YAR OM A DN V T R R P E S B L N H A I I A A E D E D N L AV O V 4549 D D B A G R L E E E R R E P N L L P N O NL D MNTII CA D P A D I I A L N R P R N K K R D H R O N E A S E V E 2 E N H T N R A 6 R 2 C P T I M R 0 6 L I O A U 0 P 0 D P C N PI T N 0 E E E G Y AV R R M O ES AV O TN R L R EN RD L 4630 K W 2 5300 O O J S E 6 L S A C U I H O R D R 9 M A L L LEN E P M RA O A N E P I L 9 H M U H O T F U P A U T I E 2 N I P T V G R M A E Q C 5 G T E L T N O I E E F P R U N 0 R E R A K A S H Y H E A R 0 L G R - R E N W M D A S N SU L I ES T AV E N E R Y US NS V TE C E I L E Y S O N E M V E E L E M I N O E S L VA T IRC ELC L Y L S S O W T O A Y U C E S M T U V L N A R O A IV TS WY O N N S 2 L C T A T R A 4 I 2 I AV V I T A E P N 4 0 V V O D A S I N C N 0 0 S L D S R T O L 0 O R N H 2 L J P VA 52 D 00 RB U I G GS C AV N O SS C ANY G N 3 O A P E A R T A 9 I N N C N S L R 9 S AV E K E R D O O T LE S A S C T D A A E S T L E RES Y NE O O I T V R R T C R H E SER V E ON N H R L A R T A A S A I R E L O E R M T VA D N S P O AV C D E L T A S D S A M G A A D H T V N E A S A Y Y M N RR C E A O T C I L G E C A O N J O A O U C Y S V M D V Y I G S L A R E CP M A H V L TR D N L E O L F E R M E S S E N I S 5 C M 3 N AR 0 LB T DV R 0 A A T S O S D A E N U Y T O C O A H R D A L M M V R R N E RI VI R I NG P A M O A D I C E R C E 5200 C D S T H T C A R L S A S W N R E H Y O O A T T D N N Y S S Y T I Y AV D I N A E F I Z O C L A E N A A A R R L D D M R H D G L D O L N R I D I R EDM N O UND R R L I A C E S D C G I B C R K O T H A V L A A Y G O S A C N S V O T R A Y S U CA TS S EL L AV DR N D D S O E D T I T O N R R L SID E S S E E D D S 4899 C U L V T A R T DR D O R N O V I N R A R N S E U E B O N S Y L A N R N C R S B N M I A H A T AN L S ET A M L I I D D R G T N G O A E O H K O O Y W M S R R D N R W S M M C I W A R M T H R O A D N D I O D O M K N R I O RES N E O T F S N E L Y D A - T D F R D O E D AL R R E R D H E C R D A A S S L R S N O T L L T LID Y E O N N C L D N R AST L L A J E M E S K SE RD P N N R O L O DR N D E S L A D T L L R R A F EAR L L S A L M C I A I E R M O A R A S E M I V R E N T A N R O R A 1 R P T A W 8 Y S M L A U 9 C E O T A L Y 9 N R O M W C L B T C N A L Y N Y NE Y N D E O D R LN R N MT LING BB W W UB ELL Y PAL F M D A V D R B I I R R S O A M T V N P O A D EA I A R U L E T L N M L T A D A R O L E L A D I D R V R N T R A O D 5 D A R C A 3 LT A 0 A 0 A R V C N I A S N December 2006 – Final Report 19 DR SHA OR N CROSS ST VI E W AV 7054 MILLS JANVI RE BR G I GS TREE YELTAM PL NORTHWOODS GLENWOOD PROSPECT AY R NOM D MA 26 R 0 Y 0 2400 CROSS ST TULIP LN IS RV AJ EARLMONT N EW Y RO K AV 2699 FOOTHILL 2099 TS PARK ALTURA AV AV AV SSERPYC HWY W 3200 LN 2799 RD ROSEBANK RAVISTA 9905 VISTA DAISY LN AV LN RD YW 7034 MAYFIELD AV ST DRCONLE SARANNE ORCHARD LN 2244 ADLETZ ALTURA AR YMO DN COMMUNITY VA ST VA VA RD PARK 2900 FAIRWAY AV 2600 2410 ODA O KAPL ROSEBANK 2099 JA VR IS LP VISTA VA UOL ISE RIEL W E Y RDUGO SDO WO PL DR AV RE Y V T A BLI PINEWOOD MONTROSE AV CAROL PARK 2364 O EC N A PATAGONIA DR LYANS DR T L A A ZA LA TAZADR ELTSAC E LN NL 9974 HWY LN PINE DR 0054 NT O CELITA EL LADO AV R OSE M EVELYN PL DR DNALKCOR CALDERO TONDOLEA LEATA LOMBARDY LA -CA OT AMOL LN 0 5 00 9904 NA AI N Y V S L YAWL H LI NEP MANHATTAN AV FRW Y AV LN CAS L T N LE LN LN FLORES D T R A TESNUS LOCKERBIE HERMOSA ST 2499 VA PARK AV LONE TONDOLEA LN LILA LN LILA TERRACITA 0044 2800 MAYFIELD BLVD TIL TLETON LN 0014 CL PIEDMONT AV DR PAL C M T TERRACE ALTA DUO 2999 AV DR 3574 YOUNG LA RD LON L E N PINE NL CT LN LOCKERBIE DR WHITING MANOR SYCAM H OR O E NOLULU 204 0 2700 FAIRWAY BARTON LN PLCANADA PLAZA LACA C N R A E D S A T ROSEBANK PL PA ML TOR D C R IDA 0034 D ON MAYR ROCKRIDGE RANCHO CANADA LA R 5 D 993699 3000 PIEDMONT VA PICKENS 2612 AV AV LUANA LN TER DR DR MER K E OC RWYNCREST RD NROC H 84 00 DRALLI WHITIN L G IL W A OODS RD DEER PASS G EN O L O W D AV 2700 MANHATTA S N T AV BL V D DNALK OR C 2 C 3 R 3 E 9 SCENT CORTO 0093 A T N E MESA MESA L LI L A N 405 RD DR LLEDSM RA 2900 2800 R C S E C 2799AV VA W AV ALTO O N R O G A A KS N L L N N WY WY AL GR NA OAK P E L NDALEGLENWOO 2 D 899 WY AV AV 2444 BRIG 4 G 1 S 00 AHD LRIN PUR D T R ELL WASATCH DR ADA WY CAM NI O CY P PLEASUR 2 E 651 2599 NERO C LF ITA DEL MAR PARKDALE R SE S DR ATLA CO LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 210 GLENDALE M O NT C NA YADA EM E C I A L A I M N NIT U A D A NN O L S S O T H R A IR I V T L A EY A C D V J R O E 1 U A 1 NV I A 3 N L 1 A E V S A L T S O H 73 03 A I K R L S N L ID A S E E V T Y JE AIAF LAM C A A G I Q R N N U RD O C I E D R E A L Z E A K A V V2 D V 6 ALVERDE R 00 CT R OSELA W O R N ES 1 V 4 AV 4 A B 4 L A AV R V O V E A R D D V AV E IEW S V E A S T NU AV ORANGEDALE AV MI W R IC A KH A V M IST W A Y 23 2 0 3 0 00 V E I W 0004 M M A ON V O A T R A R V N L D O V N T SE R THOM O PSON 2 S 12 C E T R 1 INCON G AV LE 1 N W A 9 DA A 0 A 0 L V T PL ONIA D V R ER O KA D LP U OAK H D G I R LLD O ALE P DR L GLEN L H A A D V R EN VISTA B PL G L R V AN AL D A W RUOT DA Y YW LENZ- B L EL A AR G OV R E R RA D M N LN O C A RA A N NGE T 1 RE 6 E ARADRA 00 L R D LP N V 1 Crescenta Valley County Water District Legend Roads, Thomas Bros. Crescenta Valley CWD 1:16,000 Miles LLAAFFCCOO September 10, 2003 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Los Angeles County Waterworks District #21 – Kagel Canyon Agency Information Service Area Information 1000 South Fremont Ave, Suite A-9E Service Area 0.2 sq miles Address: Alhambra, CA 91803 Population Served: 761 Contact: David Rydman Projected Population: Phone: (626) 300-3351; Fax (626) 300-3385 2010 NP Email/Website: drydman@ladpw.org 2015 NP http://ladpw.org/WWD/WaterworksDists/ 2020 NP 2025 NP Type: Retail Water 2030 NP System Information No. of Employees: NP No. of Connections per Employee NP Average Daily Demand (MGD) NP mgd Maximum Day Demand (MGD) NP mgd Miles of Pipe: NP No. of Pump Stations: 2 No. of Pressure Zones: 2 Storage Capacity 0.46 mg Financial Information (FY 2005-2006) (in thousands) Revenues: $328.0 Expenses: $196.0 Reserves: $45.0 CIP: $87.0 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” meter, 20 ccf) Meter Chg: $26.51 Water Chg: $68.40 Monthly Bill: $103.31 Tank Recoating Chg. $8.40 Service Outside Within Outside Connections Boundary/Within Boundary Sphere Total Sphere Domestic 247 NP NP NP Agriculture 0 NP NP NP Recycled 0 NP NP NP Other 0 NP NP NP Total 247 NP NP NP Supply Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Imported 33 NP NP NP NP Groundwater 27 NP NP NP NP Surface 0 NP NP NP NP Recycled 0 NP NP NP NP Total 60 NP NP NP NP Average Annual Demand Information (AF/Yr) Existing 2010 2015 2020 2025 Residential NP NP NP NP NP Comm/Ind. NP NP NP NP NP Landscape/Irr NP NP NP NP NP Other NP NP NP NP NP Total NP NP NP NP NP December 2006 – Final Report 20 INDIAN CANY ON VERANDA BLUE M S ER A RIE G DE E L PETER S DEX M TE A R R P E A K RK DEXTE R EL SANTOL TRAIL 4 SHAFER FOREST NORTH SPRING CO SUMMIT WHILE IDLE ***** EAST WEST C R EEK VIN EYAR TERRA VISTA D TE E R L R D A R I B D E G L E LA LUANDA GLAMIS GOLETA GARRICK KAG L EL O CA S NYO N ANGELE KE S LOWNA KAMLOOPS LITTLE TUJUNGA CANYON December 2006 – Final Report 21 5 LIART ***** TRAIL 10 R T A LI 1 MOONHILL TRAIL 10 TRAIL 8 VISION ***** SHORT ALTA PARK MARKET WILDWOOD INSPIRATION GRANDVIEW C AN AD A ORCHARD DE GLENSI GARBER BILTM O RE Los Angeles County Waterworks District #21, Kagel Canyon Legend Roads, Thomas Bros. 1:6,000 Kegal Canyon County Waterworks District #21 (SOI same as district boundary) 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 Miles LLAAFFCCOO August 29, 2003 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.0 ANALYSIS 3.1 GROWTH AND POPULATION The Los Angeles Region MSR study area includes three SCAG subregions: City of Los Angeles, Arroyo Verdugo and Westside Cities. The following Table 3-1 Growth and Population Projections includes the projections of the cities and agencies as well as SCAG projections for comparison. Table 3-1: Growth and Population Projections1 Agency Data 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Annual Source Population Population Population Population Population Growth Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Rate Retail – Cities Agency 43,910 44,311 45,149 45,529 46,768 0.33% Beverly Hills SCAG 35,564 35,916 36,642 37,356 38,040 0.38% Agency 106,739 110,391 114,043 117,696 121,348 0.68% Burbank SCAG 106,660 110,179 115,002 119,762 124,325 0.83% Agency 204,435 207,200 211,220 215,200 219,000 0.36% Glendale SCAG 204,435 207,182 211,220 215,207 219,028 0.36% Agency 3,955,429 4,099,389 4,157,727 4,215,380 4,270,520 0.37% Los Angeles SCAG 3,950,347 4,090,125 4,147,285 4,203,702 4,257,771 0.36% Agency 24,958 25,607 26,042 26,471 26,883 0.37% San Fernando SCAG 24,927 25,607 26,042 26,471 26,883 0.38% Agency 88,500 90,400 90,800 91,200 91,500 0.14% Santa Monica SCAG 86,560 89,933 90,290 90,656 91,018 0.22% Unincorporated Area – Subregions2 Arroyo Verdugo SCAG 20,320 21,341 22,195 23,036 23,843 0.85% Los Angeles SCAG 57,200 60,347 64,560 68,718 72,705 1.35% Westside Cities SCAG 29,083 30,738 32,659 34,551 36,366 1.24% Retail – Special Districts Crescenta Valley Agency 38,500 38,900 39,000 39,700 40,000 0.21% WD Waterworks District SCAG3 761 806 854 905 959 1.35% #21 Kagel Canyon 1 Data sources: 2005 Urban Water Management Plans provided by the agencies and Southern California Association of Governments 2004 Growth Forecast 2 Arroyo Verdugo subregion = Burbank, Glendale, La Canada-Flintridge, Unincorporated Area City of Los Angeles subregion = Los Angeles City, San Fernando, Unincorporated Area Westside Cities subregion = Beverly Hills, Culver City, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Unincorporated Area 3 Agency did not provide population projections; estimate based on SCAG estimate of 3.08 persons per household and SCAG 2004 growth estimate for unincorporated area in City of Los Angeles subregion December 2006 – Final Report 22 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region The Los Angeles region includes a broad range of urban land uses, densities, and land use intensities. The majority of the water demand is attributed to residential uses, which vary from high-density multi- family to low density single family residences on larger lots. Commercial and industrial enterprises within the region also generate significant water demand due to operations and manufacturing processes with demand fluctuating due to economic conditions. The Los Angeles region is generally considered built-out. The modest growth projected over the next twenty years will primarily be a result of infill and redevelopment. There is a noticeable trend for development of multi-family housing in areas previously zoned for single-family residential. This does not necessarily result in increased water demands, as the average usage in Los Angeles for multi-family residential is 240 gallons per home per day, versus 350 gallons for a single family dwelling. Overall Los Angeles County experienced a 12% population increase from 1990 to 2000, with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) projecting a 22% increase through 2025. Growth within the Los Angeles region is expected to be approximately 15% through 2025, less than the county-wide average. City of Beverly Hills Beverly Hills is primarily residential and commercial, with residential service comprising 79% of all connections and single family residential alone totaling 62%. This is not anticipated to change over the next 20 years. The City projects that it will be built out by 2025 with growth occurring through redevelopment and densification. Beverly Hills estimates that it serves approximately 22.3% of the population within West Hollywood; the population estimates shown above in Table 3-1 reflect the estimated population of the service area and are therefore greater than the SCAG projections for the City alone. City of Burbank The City of Burbank anticipates that the greatest amount of growth will be from commercial development, with land use intensity increasing in the downtown area. Burbank is also expecting an increase in mixed-use development along transportation corridors. New residential development will be primarily multi-family housing, with increasing density as older single-family homes are replaced. The City projects an average annual growth rate of 0.68% over the next twenty years; SCAG is projecting a slightly higher rate of 83%. City of Glendale Glendale is the third largest city in Los Angeles County. The City has one of the highest concentrations of multi-family housing in the area and is experiencing substantial growth in development of commercial buildings and new multi-family housing. Density is increasing as older single-family homes are replaced with condominiums and apartments. The City expects that the proportion of multi-family housing to total housing will continue to increase. Over the next twenty years Glendale’s population is expected to increase approximately 0.36% per year, with employment increasing at a much higher rate of 3.1% per year. December 2006 – Final Report 23 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Los Angeles The City of Los Angeles covers a 461 square mile area. Over 50% of total land use within the City is comprised of residential uses, with single-family residential at 42% of the total. Open space and parks are the next largest land use at 24%, and commercial and industrial are approximately 17%. Multi-family housing is expected to increase at nearly twice the rate of single-family housing over the next 25 years. The average household size in 2000 was estimated at nearly 2.9 persons; this is expected to decrease to 2.57 by 2030. The City is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.37% which is similar to the SCAG projection. LADWP has planned for water supply and system capacity that is adequate to serve future growth and development as included in the City’s General Plan. City of San Fernando San Fernando is primarily residential, with some commercial and industrial areas. The City is considered built-out; future growth will primarily result from infill development and rezoning from single family to multi-family residential. An increase in commercial and industrial uses is expected to result in increased water demands. The City is anticipating an average annual growth rate of 0.37%. City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica is projecting the lowest average annual growth rate in the study area, primarily due to the City’s size and limited availability of developable land. Over half of the City’s water connections are for single-family residential. An increase in multi-family residential properties is anticipated. The City is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.14%; SCAG’s projected growth rate for Santa Monica is slightly higher at 0.22%. – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District serves the unincorporated areas of La Crescenta and Montrose and portions of the Cities of Glendale and La Canada Flintridge. Land use is primarily residential; less than 5% of the District’s accounts are commercial and there are no industrial or agricultural water users. The area is considered built-out; however density is increasing through single family parcel splits and conversion from single family to multi-family residential dwellings. The District is estimating an average annual growth rate of 0.21% which is significantly lower than the projected growth rate of 0.85% for unincorporated area within the Arroyo Verdugo subregion. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21 serves the unincorporated Kagel Canyon area. The County did not provide any growth projections for this study, but the SCAG 2004 growth projection for unincorporated area within the Los Angeles City subregion is approximately 1.35%. Growth will be an issue unless a reliable water supply is obtained. December 2006 – Final Report 24 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 2002 2005 2010 2015 2020 December 2006 – Final Report 25 raey/teef-erca 2,300,000 1,950,000 1,600,000 1,250,000 900,000 550,000 200,000 noitalupop 3.2 INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND DEFICIENCIES The evaluation of infrastructure needs and deficiencies includes an analysis of both water supply and water system capacity. The following figure, Figure 3.1 Supply/Demand Forecast, shows the estimated supply and demand based on data reported by the water agencies in the Los Angeles MSR study area as well as SCAG population projections. The projections for supply and demand have been obtained from the agencies’ 2005 Urban Water Management Plans and other supporting documentation. Figure 3.1 – Los Angeles Region Supply/Demand Forecast Based on Population Projections Supply Demand Population 3.2.1 Water Supply/Demand Water sources for the Los Angeles region include local groundwater from eight basins; surface and groundwater from the Mono Basin and Owens Valley in the eastern Sierras; imported water purchased from Metropolitan; and recycled water. The study area overlies a majority of the adjudicated Upper Los Angeles River Area and its four sub-basins: San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo and Eagle Rock. The central Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region portion of the study area overlies the Hollywood Basin. Along the coast, the study area includes the Santa Monica, Central and West Coast Basins. Groundwater quality is a critical issue, requiring costly treatment programs. Over the years a number of the agencies had migrated towards significant, and in some cases total, dependence on imported water due to economics and groundwater contamination. Through settlement agreements for groundwater cleanup, construction of treatment plants, and support from Metropolitan to develop local resources, the trend is now towards decreased use of imported supply, particularly during peak summer months. The City of Los Angeles, with its land holdings and water rights in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley, receives nearly 58% of its water supply with this source delivered through the Los Angeles Aqueduct system. Because the City of Los Angeles water system has emergency interconnections with nearly all of the other agencies in the study area, this water source provides a valuable resource in the event of a local or regional emergency. Recycled water is available in certain areas and is an important resource for landscape irrigation, industrial purposes as well as power plant cooling and sanitary uses in commercial buildings. Local Groundwater Supply The local groundwater sources for the Los Angeles region include nine basins: San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, Eagle Rock, Hollywood, La Brea Subarea, Santa Monica, Central and West Coast. The San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, and Eagle Rock basins are part of the adjudicated Upper Los Angeles River Area. The Central and West Coast Basins are also adjudicated; the other three are not and no sustainable yield or pumping limitations have been established. The 1979 Judgment No. 650079, The City of Los Angeles, Plaintiff vs. Cities of San Fernando, et. al., Defendants, established the Upper Los Angeles River Area Watermaster and pumping rights in the San Fernando, Sylmar, Verdugo, and Eagle Rock Basins. The Upper Los Angeles River Area (ULARA) is considered to be the “watershed or surface drainage area tributary to the Los Angeles River at Gage F- 57.” The watershed covers approximately 514 square miles, with 192 square miles on the valley floor and 322 square miles of hill and mountain area. It is primarily in Los Angeles County, with a small portion extending into Ventura County. The San Fernando Basin is the major groundwater basin, underlying 175 square miles. The Sylmar Basin underlies 8.7 square miles, the Verdugo Basin 6.9 square miles, and the Eagle Rock Basin 1.3 square miles. Recharge occurs primarily through natural precipitation and runoff, with some benefit from imported water used in the area and recharge through the spreading grounds. The water agencies in this review hold the following water rights: December 2006 – Final Report 26 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Table 3-2: ULARA Water Rights San Fernando Sylmar Verdugo Eagle Rock Agency Basin Basin Basin Basin 20% of return water + addl Burbank purchase 4,200 AFY 20% of return water + addl Glendale 3,856 AFY purchase 5,000 AFY 43,660 AFY + 3,255 AFY+ Los Angeles 500 AFY 20.8% of return water 35.7% of return water 3,255 AFY+ San Fernando 26.3% of return water 35.7% of return water Crescenta Valley WD 3,294 AFY The City of Los Angeles holds pueblo rights to the surface waters of the Los Angeles River and the native groundwater of the San Fernando Basin, to meet its reasonable beneficial needs. The primary water rights for the other cities are based on return flow credit, which assumes that a percentage of the water used within each City is returned to the groundwater basin. Each City is entitled to a return flow credit based on all delivered water (including recycled water) in the San Fernando Basin and the tributary upland areas. Furthermore, Burbank and Glendale are permitted to extract excess water chargeable against the rights of the City of Los Angeles, with payment to Los Angeles based on specified charges generally tied to Metropolitan’s rates. Because San Fernando has rights to the San Fernando Basin but no extraction facilities, the City may extract its San Fernando Basin return water credit from the Sylmar Basin, with Los Angeles compensating by reducing its Sylmar production and increasing San Fernando Basin production. These allowances are considered “physical solutions” in the Judgment. A third right, part of the Upper Los Angeles River Area’s Policies and Procedures, allows for unlimited extraction of basin water for groundwater cleanup under Superfund, subject to payment of specified charges similar to those for the physical solution water. Lastly, in any one year, cities may extract an amount up to 10% of their last annual credit for return water, with an obligation to replace the over- extraction in the following year. The combination of these rights effectively maintains the safe yield of the basins. Groundwater quality is a critical issue for the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins. The contamination is due to a long history of ground disposal of synthetic organic compounds used as solvents in industrial and commercial activities; there are also high nitrate levels. The EPA has established four Superfund sites in the San Fernando Valley: Area 1 – North Hollywood and Burbank; Area 2- Glendale; Area 3 – Verdugo; and Area 4 – Pollock. Chromium-VI has also been found in the groundwater; however the current treatment systems are not designed to treat for this contaminant. In 2001, LADWP and the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and San Fernando, and the National Water Research Institute entered into a research partnership with the American WaterWorks Association Research Foundation to identify and test December 2006 – Final Report 27 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region technologies for chromium-VI removal. New regulations regarding maximum contaminant levels for chromium-VI are expected in 2006. Once the regulations are formally adopted, the agencies will be able to determine the system upgrades necessary to meet drinking water standards. The Central Basin adjudication is 217,367 acre-feet per year, of which the City of Los Angeles has rights to 15,000 AFY. Allowable pumping allocations are limited to 80% of pumping rights. The original judgment allowed for the water purveyors to pump groundwater in excess of replenishment, which caused the basin water quality and supply to deteriorate. To ensure adequate supply, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District has created spreading basins and the Water Replenishment District replenishes the groundwater based on the amount extracted. The judgment includes carryover rights up to 20% such that unpumped water rights may be carried over into the next year. If pumping exceeds 120%, then there is a corresponding reduction in the following year. The 1991 amendment to the judgment included an exemption for contamination extraction. The West Coast Basin is adjudicated, and Los Angeles holds groundwater rights to 1,503 AFY. Historic overpumping in the basin caused the groundwater levels to fall below sea level, which allowed for seawater intrusion. The construction of the West Coast Seawater Barrier to protect the groundwater in the basin trapped a brackish plume which has impacted groundwater. The Water Replenishment District, the agency responsible for groundwater management, has constructed a desalter facility in Torrance and is extracting and treating the groundwater. Because of these ongoing issues and potential treatment costs, Los Angeles does not currently exercise its rights in the West Coast Basin. Mono Basin and Owens Valley – Los Angeles Aqueduct System The City of Los Angeles owns a majority of the land (approximately 300,000 acres) and associated water rights in the Owens Valley. The Los Angeles Aqueduct (LAA) system is gravity fed and extends approximately 340 miles from the Mono Basin to Los Angeles. The LAA is fed by runoff from the eastern Sierras and is subject to hydrologic fluctuations based on yearly precipitation. Average deliveries have been approximately 275,000 AFY, or 45% of LADWP’s water demand. In 1989, the City’s water exports were significantly reduced in order to restore the Mono Basin ecosystem and were further reduced in the 1990’s for dust control in the dry Owens Lake and to establish a fishery on the Owens River. Approximately 166,000 AFY of the City’s water supply is now committed for environmental enhancement in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin Regions. LADWP is pursuing the use of water transfers to replace a portion of LAA water used for environmental enhancements. One proposed project includes an interconnection between the LAA and the State Water Project (SWP) California Aqueduct in Antelope Valley. December 2006 – Final Report 28 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Imported Water Supply The Metropolitan Water District provides imported water from both the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River to the Los Angeles region. Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Los Angeles, San Fernando and Santa Monica are all Metropolitan member agencies; the Crescenta Valley Water District purchases imported water through the Foothill Municipal Water District. Although SWP Contractors have an assigned allotment each year, the actual amount delivered varies depending on water availability in the Bay-Delta and other northern California sources. The southern California SWP contractors actively manage the procurement process to ensure reliability and cost control. Opportunities to use water transfers, banking and off-season deliveries are exercised if they are beneficial to the region and member agencies. The member agencies rely on Metropolitan for regional demand projections and ensuring the reliability of imported supply. Recycled Water Supply Recycled water has played an increasingly important role in the Los Angeles area as it effectively serves to offset potable use for landscape, industrial processes, power plants and other innovative applications such as sanitary use in commercial buildings. Recycled water is produced at several wastewater treatment plants, including those operated by Glendale, Burbank, Los Angeles and Santa Monica. This water supply is available in many areas within the study area. Balancing Supply and Demand Through their participation in regional planning efforts, the agencies are pursuing opportunities for conjunctive use, water transfers, and integrated resource planning in order to cost-effectively balance supply and demand. Conservation plays a critical role as well. All of the agencies are using demand management measures to reduce demand, and they are engaged in conservation programs and activities including public outreach, rebates, education and incentives. The California Water Code Division 6, Sections 10610 et seq., Urban Water Management Planning Act, as amended January 1, 2002 requires all Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) to be updated in 2005. These plans provide an opportunity for the agencies to re-evaluate and update projected population, water supply and demand within their respective service areas. Each of the agencies in the study area is in compliance with this statute (District #21 does not meet the minimum size threshold and is not required to prepare an UWMP). Overall, the regional water supply is being actively managed through the collaboration of numerous water agencies. With the region’s projected growth rate, the water supply is expected to be adequate to meet future demand provided that imported water continues to be available in adequate volume. Groundwater quality, the infrastructure needs for costly water treatment systems and improvements to aging distribution systems are critical issues for this region. The agencies will continue to need technologically December 2006 – Final Report 29 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region advanced treatment systems to address contaminants; as detection technology advances so does the requirement to meet more stringent standards for water quality. Water supply and demand for each of the public water districts in the Los Angeles MSR study area is summarized below in Table 3.3 – Supply and Demand Summary. Table 3.3 – Supply and Demand Summary (Acre Feet/Year unless otherwise noted) Projected Projected Supply Demand Agency Difference Supply Demand Difference 2005 2005 2025 2025 RETAIL - CITIES Beverly Hills 13,280 13,280 0 14,880 14,426 454 Burbank W&P 25,400 25,400 0 36,160 36,160 0 Glendale W&P 32,638 29,698 2,940 38,600 34,592 4,008 Los Angeles DWP 680,000 659,000 21,000 755,000 754,000 1,000 San Fernando 4,055 3,660 395 4,300 3,766 534 Santa Monica 14,938 14,635 303 14,602 17,831 (3,229) RETAIL - SPECIAL DISTRICTS Crescenta Valley 5,303 5,350 (47) 6,563 6,531 32 WD Waterworks District #21 Kagel 60 60 0 NP NP NP Canyon Total 24,591 2,799 Source: 2005 Urban Water Management Plans 3.2.2 Water System Infrastructure In addition to supply and demand, the review of infrastructure includes an evaluation of capacity to serve. Infrastructure for each of the public water agencies in the Los Angeles MSR study area is summarized below in Table 3.4 – Infrastructure Summary. December 2006 – Final Report 30 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Table 3.4 –Infrastructure Summary Total Treatment # of Service Miles of Pump # of Agency Tanks/Reservoirs Storage Plant Connections Pipe Stations Interties Capacity Capacity RETAIL - CITIES Beverly Hills 10,587 170 11 10 44.2 mg 3 mgd 2 Burbank W&P 26,638 276 21 25 52.7 mg 9,000 gpm 2 Glendale W&P 32,431 378 28 30 183.1 mg 8.65 mgd 3 Los Angeles DWP 676,822 7,200 49 105 NP 600 mgd NP San Fernando 5,000 59 3 4 9 mg NA 1 Santa Monica 16,936 236 3 4 40 mg 12 mgd 0 RETAIL - SPECIAL DISTRICTS Crescenta Valley 8,073 88 16 17 17.5 mg 1.2 mgd 4 WD Waterworks District #21 Kagel 247 NP 2 3 0.46 mg NP 1 Canyon NP – data not provided by agency; NA – not applicable – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills Beverly Hills’ water sources include imported water purchased directly from Metropolitan (90%) and groundwater from the Hollywood Basin (10%). The City has historically extracted from the Hollywood Basin and the La Brea Subarea. The City has a preferential right to 1.01% of Metropolitan’s water. Treated imported water is delivered through two connections on Metropolitan’s Santa Monica Feeder system. These connections can deliver up to 43,336 AFY when operating at 80% of capacity, which is nearly three times greater than current demand. The City holds appropriative water rights in the Hollywood Basin and La Brea Subarea, originating from the recordation of the original subdivision map in 1907, the City’s subsequent incorporation in 1914 and purchase of the Beverly Hills Utilities Corporation in 1923. This was followed by the purchase of the Sherman Water Company in 1928, which served the unincorporated West Hollywood area. Recycled water is not available within the Beverly Hills service area. The closest tertiary treatment plant is approximately 20 miles away, and the closest pipeline is 15 miles away. The cost to establish a wastewater treatment plant within the city and install dual piping would be prohibitive. From 1976 to 2003 the City relied on imported water for 100% of its supply. The City is now incorporating the use of groundwater to meet a portion of demand. In 2003 the City completed the construction of three new water wells and a Water Treatment Plant. The City now has four operating wells; all of the groundwater is treated at the Public Works Facility through reverse osmosis technology. December 2006 – Final Report 31 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region The City currently leases the Public Works Facility and Water Treatment Plant from Earth Tech, a private entity. The treatment system can produce up to 1,028 gpm (or 3 mgd) and is expected to meet up to 25% of water demand in the future. Beverly Hills distribution system is gravity fed. Current storage capacity is 43.2 mg in 10 reservoirs; the Coldwater Reservoir will be reconstructed and enlarged by 2007 to add an additional 1 mg of storage capacity. The City has two emergency interconnections with the City of Los Angeles and is currently pursing a third interconnection to improve fire safety on a closed pressure zone. There are multiple projects underway to improve or augment water supply, treatment, collection and distribution facilities. The City’s FY 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program identifies $58.9 million in water utility improvements through FY 2009-2010. The following projects have been identified: • Water Mains and Hydrants – replace undersized and deteriorated water mains and upgrade fire hydrant systems, $16.59 million from FY 2006 to FY 2010; • Coldwater Canyon Reservoir –replace the existing Coldwater Canyon Reservoir with two new reservoirs, one built at the existing Coldwater site and the other at Woodland Drive, $29 million; • Reservoir Maintenance – maintenance of existing reservoirs, including paving yards, replacing fences, security systems, seismic upgrades of steel tanks and buildings, $7.685 million; and • Water Treatment Plant Acquisition – purchase the Public Works facility and Water Treatment Plant from Earth Tech in FY 2008-2009, $18 million. City of Burbank – Burbank Water and Power Burbank’s sources of water supply include local groundwater from the San Fernando Basin, imported water purchased from Metropolitan, and recycled water. The City has five delivery points for Metropolitan water, with a rated total maximum flow of 115 cfs. The maximum capacity is significantly greater than projected demands over the next 25 years. In addition to treated water, Burbank plans to purchase untreated water from Metropolitan for groundwater replenishment. This would be delivered to existing spreading grounds in the north San Fernando Valley. This project has been postponed due to technical issues; however the City is pursuing other options. In order to maintain and optimize groundwater pumping and treatment, Burbank needs to acquire approximately 7,400 AF of groundwater per year through replenishment or a combination of replenishment and physical solutions (i.e., paying Los Angeles for the right to extract its groundwater from the San Fernando Basin). Per the 1979 Judgment, Burbank has rights to “import return water”, which is calculated as 20% of all water delivered within Burbank’s service area, including imported water, groundwater, recycled water, and irrigation water pumped from private wells by the Valhalla Cemetery. The City can accumulate stored water credits if it pumps less than 20%. It can add to its stored water credits through the use of spreading basins for groundwater replenishment. Furthermore, Burbank can purchase an additional 4,200 December 2006 – Final Report 32 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region AFY of groundwater from the City of Los Angeles with payment at a specified rate. Burbank had stored water credits of 22,038 AF as of October 1, 2004. The City plans to hold 10,000 AF of groundwater credits in reserve, which would allow for normal extractions for approximately 18 months without replenishment. Burbank has more well capacity than water rights or treatment capacity, with six wells currently not used. Currently, imported water is used to meet 73% of potable demand; that is projected to decrease to 52% by 2025 with the Valley/Burbank Operating Unit producing at capacity. Burbank has two treatment plants to remove VOCs. The Lake Street Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Plant began operation in 1992, producing 200 to 250 AF per month from two wells. However, the plant was not designed to remove chromium-VI and it was taken out of service in 2001. New chromium-VI regulations are expected in 2006, which will allow the City to determine the future use of the wells and the plant. The Valley/Burbank Operable Unit began operating in 1996 with a design capacity of 9,000 gpm. This facility could produce approximately 12,336 AFY, or half the City’s potable water requirement. However, operational problems have reduced production to less than 10,000 AFY, with a projected output in 2005 of only 6,400 AF. Plant replacements and modifications that are underway are expected to improve reliability and increase output. Nitrate levels are an issue, requiring that groundwater be blended 50/50 with imported water to meet drinking water standards. Blending also alleviates the issue with chromium-VI levels. If water demand decreases, groundwater production must decrease as well to meet blending requirements. If the imported water supply were interrupted, this would also impact groundwater production to avoid exceeding the nitrate levels. Depending on future chromium regulations, it may be necessary for the City to add additional treatment processes for chromium-VI removal. Recycled water is available from the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant, which was constructed in 1967 and has a treatment capacity of 9.0 mgd. Recycled water is used by the electric power plant and for landscape irrigation. The City is developing a Recycled Water Master Plan with a grant from the State of California. The Plan will be used for the potential build-out of the recycled water system. The City has two emergency interconnections with the City of Glendale, but none with the City of Los Angeles. Storage capacity is 52.7 mg, which is 2.6 times average day demand. Burbank’s FY 2005-2006 CIP includes $26.3 million for water utility projects through FY 2009-2010 and beyond, with $5.0 million funded for FY 2005-2006. Major projects include the following: • Water Connection to MWD – $2.2 million • System Expansion – $2.5 million • Meter Replacements – $1.8 million December 2006 – Final Report 33 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region • Reclaimed Water Reservoir Design – $1.4 million • Reservoir #1 Rebuild – $6.9 million • Expansion Mains – $1.7 million Glendale Water and Power The City of Glendale’s water supply is comprised of local groundwater from the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins, imported supply purchased directly from Metropolitan, and recycled water. Local groundwater supply contributes approximately 27% of the City’s potable supply. The City has adopted a Water Resource Plan with the objective to develop more local supplies and identify the facilities necessary to increase the use of local resources. Prior to 2003 the City had essentially ceased using groundwater from the San Fernando Basin due to water quality. Through operation of the Glendale Water Treatment Plant the City plans to increase its production from the San Fernando Basin to meet approximately 23% of water demands. Glendale’s primary water rights in the San Fernando Basin are based on a “return flow credit”, a water right that assumes a percentage of the water used in the City is returned to the groundwater basin. The City is entitled to a return flow credit of 20% of all delivered water (including recycled water) in the San Fernando Basin and the tributary upland areas. The credit ranges from 5,000 to 5,400 AFY depending on actual water use. In addition, the City has an agreement to extract excess water chargeable against the rights of the City of Los Angeles, with payment based on specified charges generally tied to Metropolitan’s rates. This agreement for “physical solution water” is for 5,000 AFY. A third right, part of the Upper Los Angeles River Area’s Policies and Procedures, allows for unlimited extraction of basin water for groundwater cleanup under Superfund, subject to payment of specified charges similar to those for the physical solution water. Lastly, in any one year, Glendale may extract an amount up to 10% of its last annual credit for import return water, with an obligation to replace the over-extraction in the following year. The combination of these rights effectively allows the City to extract any quantity of water to meet demands, subject to certain conditions and payment. In the Verdugo Basin, Glendale and the Crescenta Valley Water District hold the only water rights to the basin. Glendale holds prescriptive rights to 3,856 AFY. The City’s use of this source has been limited due to issues with water quality, water levels, and limited extraction capacity. The existing wells and treatment capacity of the Verdugo Park Water Treatment Plant will not allow the City to utilize its entire water right. The City is studying potential sites for new wells. Glendale has three delivery points from the Metropolitan system. The delivery capacity is 78 cfs; during hot summer days the City often uses the full capacity. Prior to operation of the Glendale Water Treatment Plant, the City relied on imported supply for more than 90% of its potable demand. That has dropped to December 2006 – Final Report 34 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 69% currently; with a goal of 65% by 2010 through system upgrades for groundwater extraction and treatment. Recycled water is produced at the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, a 20 mgd facility owned by both cities. Each is entitled to 50% of the water produced. The recycled water delivery system includes 20 miles of mains, 5 storage tanks, and 6 pumping plants; there are approximately 40 customers using 1,800 AFY. There have been issues with recycled water quality and reliability, and the City has implemented equipment and processing changes to improve service. Glendale and the City of Irvine are the only two cities in southern California that require and implement dual plumbing for sanitary programs in office buildings. Glendale has short-term/emergency interconnections with the City of Burbank and Crescenta Valley Water District, and preliminary design has started for an interconnection with the City of Los Angeles. The City has a standing policy that the minimum size for distribution lines is 8-inches. As of FY 2004- 2005, nearly 8 miles of old 4-inch main have been replaced with 8-inch main. The City has ongoing programs for water main cleaning and lining, as well as pump station improvements. Glendale has multiple projects underway to improve or augment water supply, water banking, treatment, collection and distribution facilities. The FY 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program includes funding of $14.7 million for the current year. The total value of projects through FY 2013-2014 are as follows: • Water Mains, Valves, Hydrants, and Services - $35 million • Water Reservoirs/Tanks - $30 million • Recycled Water Reservoir/Tanks - $2.7 million • Water Quality and Treatment Improvements - $2.5 million • Public Water Source Improvements - $5 million • Water Pumping Plan Improvements - $4 million City of Los Angeles – Department of Water and Power The water sources for the City of Los Angeles include surface water from the eastern Sierras delivered through the Los Angeles Aqueduct system, local groundwater, imported water and recycled water. The City estimates that demand reductions through water conservation remain above 15%; water usage in the City is at the same level as it was 20 years ago even though the population has increased by 750,000. The City increased its goal for water conservation to 20% with the adoption of its 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. The City of Los Angeles owns a majority of the land in the Owens Valley (approximately 300,000 acres) as well as the associated water rights. Overall, the City holds approximately 140 water rights licenses in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley. The most significant is a license to divert 50,000 miner’s inches December 2006 – Final Report 35 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region (1,200 cfs) from the Owens Valley north of the town of Independence. The majority of these rights were filed with the State Water Resources Control Board prior to 1914. The first Los Angeles Aqueduct was constructed in the early 1900’s and the second in 1970; the gravity fed system extends approximately 340 miles from the Mono Basin to Los Angeles. The LAA is fed by runoff from the eastern Sierras and is subject to hydrologic fluctuations based on yearly precipitation. Average deliveries have been approximately 275,000 AFY, or 45% of LADWP’s water demand. Environmental issues in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley have limited the City’s ability to fully exercise its water rights. Approximately 166,000 AFY is committed for environmental enhancement in the Owens Valley and Mono Basin Regions. Los Angeles’ rights in the Mono Basin were amended in 1994 through the Mono Lake Basin Water Right Decision 1631. Water exports from the Mono Basin are currently limited to 16,000 AFY per court order. The Owens River was the main source of supply for the Owens Lake; however due to water diversions the lake was completely dry by the late 1920’s. The lakebed became a major source of windblown dust such that the EPA classified the southern Owens Valley as a serious non-attainment area for dust particulates. The EPA required that the area be brought into compliance by 2006. Through a 1998 Memorandum of Agreement, LADWP began diverting water in 2001 for the Owens Lake Dust Control Project. The adopted plan defines a 29.8 square-mile area on the lakebed where dust must be controlled. As of 2005, dust control over two-thirds of the management area has been implemented through the use of vegetation and shallow flooding. LADWP estimates that up to 55,000 AFY will be required for the dust control project. LADWP is also involved with the Lower Owens River Project, which will release water from the LAA to create a warm water fishery along a 62-mile section of the Owens River. In August 2005 the Superior Court of Inyo County ordered LADWP to lower its annual groundwater pumping from the Owens Valley and supply water for groundwater recharge until a permanent base flow of approximately 40 cfs is established throughout the Lower Owens River. LADWP is paying Inyo County’s share of construction and implementation to expedite construction of the project in order to meet the Court-imposed deadline. The Lower Owens River Project is expected to use approximately 35,000 AFY. LADWP is pursuing the use of water transfers to replace a portion of LAA water used for environmental enhancements in the Owens Valley. One proposed project includes an interconnection between the LAA and the SWP California Aqueduct in Antelope Valley. This project includes a turnout facility with a capacity of 40,000 AFY and would involve DWR, Metropolitan, LADWP and the Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency. December 2006 – Final Report 36 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Water delivered through the LAA is high quality; the only concern is increasing arsenic levels due to volcanic formations through which the Owens River naturally flows. The current levels are well below federal and state drinking water standards; however the City is addressing the issue in preparation for potentially more stringent regulations. A treatment process at the LAA Filtration Plant is being evaluated. The City is projecting a steady decrease in the use of imported water from Metropolitan. If all potential local supplies and conservation are developed as planned, demands for imported water from Metropolitan would be approximately 360,000 AFY in 2030, or 39% of the City’s total supply. LADWP is transitioning to the use of chloramines for disinfection. This should be completed by 2008, which will ensure chemical compatibility should the City need to purchase and blend Metropolitan water with other water supplies in the City’s distribution system. LADWP is also investigating the development of a 12 to 25 mgd desalination facility at the Scattergood Generating Plant. This site was selected for further study following a fatal flaw analysis of three City- owned coastal power generating facilities. Local groundwater is an important source of supply for Los Angeles. As noted above the City holds the following local groundwater rights: • Upper Los Angeles River Area: o San Fernando Basin = 43,660 AFY plus 20.8% of import return water o Sylmar Basin = 3,255 AFY plus 35.7% of import return water o Eagle Rock Basin = 500 AF • Central Basin = 15,000 AF • West Coast Basin = 1,503 AF Approximately 86% of the City’s groundwater supply is from the ULARA basins, with 14% from the Central Basin. The City is not exercising its rights in the West Coast Basin due to groundwater quality issues. Per the 1979 Judgment, the City of Los Angeles has the right to all native water within the ULARA based on its pueblo rights, as well as the right to imported water that is delivered and returned to the San Fernando Basin by the City. The native safe yield is fixed at 43,660 AFY and the return of imported water averages 43,000 AFY. The City may also store water in the San Fernando Basin, and stored water credits may be used to supplement the City’s annual entitlement. The City had a stored water credit of 320,000 AF in October 2005. The City utilizes conjunctive use in managing its water supplies, generally pumping its annual entitlement from April through October when demands are highest and utilizing imported water in lower demand December 2006 – Final Report 37 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region months. LADWP coordinates with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to recharge the San Fernando Basin through spreading native water such as stormwater runoff. Nearly 25,400 AFY is spread in five facilities. Two spreading grounds have the ability to accept imported water for recharge. Groundwater quality in the San Fernando Valley is a critical concern. LADWP has established operating goals for VOCs that are 33 to 40% higher than the maximum contaminant levels allowed by state and federal regulations. This provides a safety margin for LADWP in managing water quality. In 1987 LADWP entered into an agreement with the EPA to serve as the lead agency for conducting a remedial investigation of groundwater contamination in the San Fernando Basin. LADWP has received over $23 million from the Superfund program to construct, operate and maintain the North Hollywood Operable Unit and complete the remedial investigation to characterize the Basin and the nature and extent of the contamination. The investigation included installation of 88 shallow monitoring wells to monitor contamination plumes, develop a groundwater flow model, and ongoing monitoring for VOCs, nitrates and other contaminants. The City also operates the Pollock Wells Treatment Plant, another Superfund site. The plant treats up to 3,000 gpm to remove VOCs. LADWP is actively involved in chromium-VI treatment research. LADWP has two production well fields in the Central Basin and is planning to construct new production wells to replace older wells that are at the end of their useful life. Water quality concerns are related to iron and manganese levels. A corrosion control station has been activated to improve water quality. Recycled water is an increasingly important source of supply. Within the City of Los Angeles, LADWP is responsible for planning, constructing and operating recycled water projects, while the Department of Public Works - Bureau of Sanitation is responsible for the wastewater program. All recycled water undergoes tertiary treatment and disinfection; recycled water in the harbor area undergoes advance treatment. The treatment plants include the Donald C. Tillman Reclamation Plant, Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, Terminal Island Treatment Plant, and Hyperion Treatment Plant. The City currently uses approximately 1,950 AFY for municipal and industrial purposes to reduce demand. 28,500 AFY is used for environmental enhancement and recreation in the Sepulveda Basin and to provide beneficial flows in the Los Angeles River. Approximately 34,000 AFY of secondary treated wastewater is delivered to the West Basin MWD for further treatment and use within that service area. The City projects the ultimate potential for recycled water to be approximately 107,000 AFY, including 8,500 AF for industrial uses, 93,500 AF for irrigation, and 5,000 AF for the seawater barrier. LADWP operates 9 well fields, approximately 110 reservoirs and tanks which have a capacity ranging from 0.01 to 11,000 acre feet, 70 pumping stations, filtration plants with a capacity of 500 mgd, 7,100 miles of water pipelines, 23 chlorination sites and 56,500 fire hydrants. LADWP has ongoing maintenance programs for pipeline replacement, pipeline corrosion control, and cement lining in order to December 2006 – Final Report 38 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region preserve the integrity of the infrastructure and reduce unaccounted water losses. By 2005, most of LADWP’s 7,200 mile distribution system will be lined with cement mortar which improves water flows and water quality while reducing water losses and corrosion build-up. LADWP uses a ten-year planning horizon for its Capital Improvement Program. The CIP for FY 2003- 2012 includes $3.48 billion in water utility projects. For FY 2005-2006, $496.7 million has been budgeted for capital improvements, including the following: • Water Quality Improvements – $154.4 million • Water Resources – $91.1 million • Infrastructure – $181.9 • Support Functions – $69.3 million City of San Fernando San Fernando’s water sources include groundwater from the Sylmar Basin and imported water. The City of San Fernando and Los Angeles share equal rights to the safe yield of the Sylmar Basin. After subtracting the overlying pumping rights of two private parties, the safe yield of the Basin was determined to be 6,510 AFY; therefore each of the cities has rights to 3,255 AFY. Both cities also have the right to store water in the Basin; as of October 2004 San Fernando had a stored credit of 227 AF. San Fernando annexed to Metropolitan in 1971. The City purchases imported water to supplement groundwater, which can then be used to build up water credit in the Basin by reducing groundwater production. San Fernando participates in Metropolitan’s In-Lieu Seasonal Storage Program whereby treated imported water is delivered directly to the City’s reservoir and treatment system during the winter months. This effectively conserves groundwater for use in the warmer months, reducing demand for imported supply. The City has a 6-inch emergency interconnection with the City of Los Angeles. San Fernando’s water meter and water main replacement program, begun 1982, is planned to continue for the next five years. As of 2005, approximately 3,200 meters have been replaced along with 16.2 miles of water main. The City operates four wells, with a combined capacity of 4,650 gpm. Water treatment is provided at the wellheads. Motors and pumps for three of the wells have been rehabilitated over the past five years, and the City plans to repair or rebuild the fourth well in the next ten years. The City budgeted a total of $410,000 for its FY 2004-2005 capital replacement projects, including water meter and main replacements and fire hydrant upgrades. City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica’s water supply is comprised of imported water purchased from Metropolitan, local groundwater and recycled water. Prior to 1996 the City had reduced its use of imported water to less than 5,000 AFY; however, imported use increased significantly as wells were taken out of production December 2006 – Final Report 39 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region due to the presence of MTBE in the groundwater. The City has two connections to Metropolitan with a combined capacity that is adequate to meet 100% of the City’s water demands; these connections also have the hydraulic capability to directly serve all three pressure zones within the City. The difference in supply versus demand for Year 2025 shown above in Table 3.3 would be met with additional imported water. The City overlies the Santa Monica Groundwater Basin, which is divided into five sub-basins: Arcadia, Olympia, South Santa Monica or Coastal; Charnock, and Crestal. There are no established limits for production out of the Basin; the City notes that none of the sub-basins used by the City are in an overdraft condition. Santa Monica is planning to conduct a groundwater management study in the future to determine the safe yield. The City operates three well fields, one each in the Olympic, Charnock, and Arcadia Sub-basins. MTBE was first detected in the Charnock Well Field in 1995, which eventually forced the City to cease groundwater production from both the Charnock and Arcadia well fields in 1996. Per the Settlement Agreement executed in December 2003, the responsible parties are paying for the remediation of the water supply from the five Charnock wells, as well as paying for the replacement water and the design and construction of a new water treatment facility for the City. The Arcadia Well Field has two wells, and two systems have been installed to remediate MTBE. MTBE is no longer present in the two Arcadia wells and DHS has approved an amendment to the operating permit allowing continued production while placing the treatment facility on stand-by mode. The Santa Monica Well Field has three active wells. The Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) was completed in 2002. The facility treats urban runoff from two drains to Title 22 standards; the recycled water is used on parks, medians, Woodlawn Cemetery, and dual-plumbed buildings. The facility has the capacity to treat 500,000 gpd with a peak capacity of 750,000 gpd. The plant currently treats approximately 300,000 gpd. The City of Santa Monica operates and manages 3 major pumping plants, 12 water wells, a softening and filtering plant for locally produced water and 4 reservoirs with a combined storage capacity of 40 mg. The City has an ongoing water main replacement program and plans to replace up to 18,000 lineal feet in FY 2005-2006 and another 18,000 feet in FY 2006-2007. The City plans to conduct an audit of the water system in 2006, which will identify infrastructure needs. Santa Monica’s FY 2005-2006 CIP includes $3.7 million for water system projects: • Water Main Replacement – $1.6 million • Water Main Replacement – $550,000 • MTBE Charnock – $1.5 million • MTBE Arcadia – $60,000 December 2006 – Final Report 40 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District obtains approximately 50% of its water supply from the Verdugo Basin, with the balance coming from imported water purchased from the Foothill Municipal Water District. The CVWD and the City of Glendale share rights to the Verdugo Basin, with the District holding prescriptive rights to 3,294 acre-feet per year. The District anticipates that imported water will be used to meet increased demand from growth. The District’s participation in conjunctive use projects with FMWD may provide additional supply in the future, and CVWD may indirectly benefit from FMWD/Metropolitan cooperative storage agreements in the Raymond Groundwater Basin. As noted above, groundwater quality in the Verdugo Basin is an issue. Nitrate levels are high and some District wells show the presence of VOCs that exceed the State’s maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The groundwater is either blended with imported supply or treated at the District’s Glenwood Nitrate Reclamation Facility to meet DHS standards for drinking water quality. Since 2000 the District has received three Local Groundwater Assistance Grants totaling $685,000. The funding has been used to study the Verdugo Basin and the potential for stormwater recharge. The District is experiencing increasing water demands along with diminished groundwater production capacity due to declining natural recharge; this trend is affecting the District’s supply reliability. Water demand has steadily increased since 1994, exceeding the anticipated level of increase that would correlate with population growth. Over the next 20 years, the District is estimating an average annual increase in demand of 1.1% with a 0.21% population growth rate. The District attributes the historic increases in demand to customer complacency following the end of the drought in the early 1990’s. The District has adopted a Water Conservation Policy and offers a comprehensive water conservation/public education program, including a water conservation alert system to reduce usage during peak periods. As a result of this program, water use in the summer of 2005 had decreased 6 to 9% over the previous year. With the water supply system functioning normally, the District can meet peak summertime demands. However, if supply from Glendale or FMWD were significantly reduced during an emergency, the District might not be able to meet peak demand. The District provides water service to approximately 2,300 connections outside its boundaries in the City of Glendale. GWP water distribution lines parallel CVWD lines on some streets in the overlap area. CVWD directs new customer/developers in this overlap area to GWP where Glendale has facilities available to serve them; however CVWD provides new or expanded service connections where no GWP water mains are located. December 2006 – Final Report 41 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region The District’s distribution system includes 12 groundwater wells, a gravity-feed mountain tunnel and three connections to the FMWD/Metropolitan system. Since 2000 the District has rehabilitated its original ten wells and installed two new wells. The District is planning to replace two older wells when appropriate sites are located. The District noted that many of the water mains are at or beyond their useful life, and the District is replacing 5,000 to 6,000 lineal feet of pipeline per year. The District has also contracted for leak detection services on an annual basis so that water leaks can be repaired or pipe replaced. The Crescenta Valley is prone to wildfire danger and adequate water storage is critical for fire protection. The District has a storage capacity of 17.5 million gallons in 14 reservoirs. The reservoirs are generally in good to excellent condition and all have been inspected or recoated within the past five years. The District has initiated a Water Supply Master Plan, which will assess reservoir storage capacity and the ability to meet potential peak demands in any given pressure zone. With the water supply issue and wildfire danger, emergency interties with adjacent systems are critical. The District has interties with the Glendale and La Canada Irrigation District systems. The Glendale connections include six zone-to-zone dedicated fire hydrant connections for emergency water transfers. In 2004, the District completed an emergency intertie with Glendale that has the capacity to deliver up to 3.2 cfs into the CVWD system. Water wheeling for emergencies could potentially occur from Burbank to Glendale to Crescenta Valley to La Canada-Flintridge to Pasadena. The District has applied for Prop 50 grant funding to construct an emergency intertie with the City of Los Angeles. The connection would allow CVWD to purchase approximately 1.4 mgd from Los Angeles during a local emergency, which is approximately 40% of the average day demand. Furthermore, the District could provide water to FMWD in the event that the Metropolitan system was shutdown. One additional intertie would be added and two existing connections that are undersized would be upgraded. The District’s 10-year Capital Improvement Program identifies $26.5 million in projects. The FY 2005- 2006 budget includes $1.9 million in capital improvements for water operations. The following summarizes the projects forecasted through FY 2011-2012: • Water Distribution – $8.7 million • Recycled Water – $2.1 million • Reservoir Upgrades – $6.5 million • Well Improvements (including groundwater recharge) – $5.5 million • SCADA System – $131,000 • Pump Station Upgrades – $478,000 • Water Quality – $457,000 December 2006 – Final Report 42 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21 receives its water supply from three groundwater wells, all of which have structural, nitrate and bacteria issues. The District has an emergency interconnection with the City of Los Angeles; water from the two sources was blended (approximately 50/50) to meet DHS drinking water standards. The District has entered into an agreement with the City of Glendale to purchase 100% of District #21’s supply, wheeling it through the City of Los Angeles’ system. December 2006 – Final Report 43 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.3 FINANCING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES 3.3.1 Revenue Source and Funding The water agencies included in this service review receive the majority of their revenue from water sales and user fees and charges. All are operating as an enterprise activity such that revenues are expected to cover all water utility-related expenses. Escalating costs associated with capital improvements, personnel and benefits as well as cost increases for water purchases represent common financing constraints. Rate stabilization is a priority, and the agencies are not always able to pass on the full incremental cost increase within a given year. In additional to internal cost increases, the agencies are subject to the pressures of revenue changes implemented by outside agencies. The State budget act of 2004 significantly changed how local revenues are allocated. Each of the cities and special districts was required to contribute to the State’s general fund for FY 2004-2005 and FY 2005-2006, which impacted the water utilities in some way through inter-fund transfers and more stringent cost allocations. Proposition 1A, approved by voters in November 2004, establishes limitations and protects local revenues from State re-allocations in the future. The impact of the revenue changes in 2004 will likely impact the agencies for several years as they seek to recover financially. 3.3.2 Revenues and Expenses Comparison Each of the agencies accounts for its water utility service through a proprietary or enterprise fund. This enables them to track direct and related revenue and expenses as well as cost allocations from other departments providing related services. The following Figure 3.2 –2005-2006 Financial Information, compares the revenues, expenses, reserves and capital improvement program costs of each water agency reviewed. December 2006 – Final Report 44 OCFAL selegnA soL weiveR ecivreS lapicinuM noigeR selegnA soL – ecivreS retaW noitamrofnI tegduB 6002-5002 – 2.3 erugiF 000,000,04 :PWDAL 008,991,964,1$ :euneveR 006,304,621,1$ :sesnepxE 000,156,694$ :PIC 002,697,243$ :sevreseR 000,000,03 000,000,02 000,000,01 - legaK 12# DWW DW yellaV atnecserC acinoM atnaS odnanreF naS selegnA soL eladnelG knabruB slliH ylreveB noynaC sevreseR PIC sesnepxE euneveR 54 tropeR laniF – 6002 rebmeceD Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills As of June 30, 2005, the City of Beverly Hills Water Enterprise Fund had reserves of $24 million of which $22.7 million was unrestricted. Net operating income was $1.4 million on revenues of $17.1 million. Long-term liabilities related to the water utility totaled $32.4 million, including $19.2 million in capital leases and $13.8 million in revenue bonds. The revenue bonds were issued in 1998 and mature in 2022; interest rates range from 4.0% to 7.0%. In FY 2003, construction was completed on the Public Works Facility, a 31,500 sf facility that houses all public works and utility employees and activities, and the Water Treatment Plant. Both facilities are accounted for through the Water Enterprise Fund and were constructed under a design-build-operate-finance lease agreement with Earth Tech, Inc. The 20-year leases have an interest rate of 6% and include early buy-out options after the first five years. Annual payments on the leases are $943,770 for the Public Works Facility and $869,649 for the Water Treatment Plant. The FY 2005-2006 budget for the Water Enterprise Fund includes $19 million in bond and other financing in conjunction with $25.4 million budgeted for capital projects. City of Burbank For FY 2004-2005, the City of Burbank’s water utility had net operating income of $2.3 million on $17.2 million in revenue. Water utility long-term liabilities such as revenue bonds, other debts, and compensated absences totaled $9.24 million at June 30, 2005. The revenue bonds were issued in 1998 and bear interest rates ranging from 2.9% to 4.75%. The bonds mature in 2023. The principal balance at June 30, 2005 was $7,017,000, with $770,000 due in the current year. Reserves at year end were $10.5 million, with $6.4 million unrestricted. Currently, capital improvement projects are funded by retained earnings. In 2003 the City Council adopted a Financial Reserve Policy which is comprised of two reserves: General Operating Reserve and Capital Reserve. The General Operating Reserve is designed to cover general operating expenses of the water system, as well as to provide working capital. The Capital Reserve is designed to provide funding for new and replacement capital projects, and to provide flexibility to implement capital projects on an emergency basis or as opportunities arise. City of Glendale As of June 30, 2005, Glendale had $4,294,000 in designated reserves for its water utility; long-term liabilities were $579,629, all associated with compensated absences and post-employment benefits. For FY 2004-2005, the City had net operating income of $5.9 million on revenue of $30.9 million. In December 2003, the City Council adopted a cash reserve policy for the Water Fund, requiring an annual review of reserves to determine if recommended levels are sufficient. For the year ending June 30, 2005 the following targets were established: • $1,700,000 for rate stabilization • $5,700,000 for contingencies December 2006 – Final Report 46 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Glendale funds its capital improvements through a fund that receives revenue from water works depreciation, contributions in aide of construction, and a reclaimed water line surcharge. Revenue through FY 2013-2014 is projected to be approximately $60.1 million. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power As of June 30, 2005 the Water Fund had $207 million in restricted net assets, including $50 million for debt service, $144.4 million for pensions and other post employment benefits, and $12.2 million for other purposes. Net operating income was $96.9 million on revenues of $558.3 million. In July 2004 the Water Enterprise Fund issued $200 million in fixed rate bonds with the proceeds to be used for water system capital improvements. As of June 30, 2005 the Water Fund had outstanding long-term liabilities of $1.49 billion, including fixed and variable rate revenue bonds and loans payable. The interest rates range from 2.32% on the loans to 5.245% on the fixed rate bonds. The loans mature in 2024, the variable rate bonds in 2036 and the fixed rate bonds in 2044. City of San Fernando For FY 2004-2005, the City of San Fernando had net operating income for its water utility of $381,000 on revenue of $2.7 million. The only long-term debt for the water utility is a $1.5 million internal loan from the Sewer Fund. City of Santa Monica For FY 2004-2005, Santa Monica had a net operating loss in its water utility of $1.46 million on revenues of $13.1 million. As of June 30, 2005 there were no long-term liabilities associated with the water utility. Reserves were $6.0 million of which $1.1 million are restricted. A special fund has been established related to the settlement of the Charnock well field MTBE issue, including reimbursement of costs for design, build and operation of a water treatment facility, as well as water purchases. The FY 2005-2006 budget for the Charnock treatment facility was $12.9 million. – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District’s only long-term debt is a revenue bond bearing an interest rate of 3.17% which matures in 2008. Semi-annual principal and interest payments are $66,758. The outstanding principal balance at June 30, 2005 was $379,235. Deposits and investments at June 30, 2005 were $6.9 million. The District had a net operating loss of $830,000 on revenues of $7.7 million for both water and wastewater services. The District has established minimum cash reserve levels for both water and wastewater services. Water services are as follows: • Emergency reserves of $750,000 to provide seed money in the event of a natural disaster before FEMA funding becomes available; December 2006 – Final Report 47 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region • Working cash equal to two months of operating, general and administrative expenses, excluding purchased water; and • Drought contingency or rate stabilization reserve of 25% of annual water charges. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21 is a dependent special district, with operational and capital activities accounted for in enterprise funds within the Los Angeles County budget. District #21 receives its revenue through service charges; customers also pay a tank recoating charge of $8.40 per month, which is in effect for 10 years to recover the cost of this capital improvement. $140,000 in bonds has been authorized for District #21 water system improvements, with $60,000 sold as of June 30, 2005. Waterworks district bonds for all districts bear interest rates ranging from 3.3% to 8.0%. December 2006 – Final Report 48 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST AVOIDANCE AND SHARED FACILITIES – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills The City of Beverly Hills participates in reciprocal service agreements with the City of Los Angeles for emergency water supply with interconnections between the two systems. The City is actively implementing water conservation programs for demand management. In 1976 the City stopped production of local groundwater and become entirely dependent on imported water as it was more economical. In 2001 the City entered into an agreement with Earth Tech, Inc., a private entity, to design, build, own, and operate a new Public Works Facility and Water Treatment Plant. The City is funding the facilities through a capital lease. Treated water is purchased from Earth Tech; with Metropolitan subsidies the cost of local treated groundwater is comparable to that of imported water. City of Burbank Burbank shares two emergency interconnections with the City of Glendale; the City noted that an additional interconnection with the City of Los Angeles would be beneficial. The City is actively implementing water conservation programs for demand management. Burbank is also pursuing options to use untreated imported water for groundwater recharge spreading to augment its groundwater credits in the San Fernando Basin. The chromium-VI issue in the San Fernando Valley has the potential to be very costly due to new treatment technology, lost water supply, and underused capacity in existing treatment facilities not designed for chromium-VI removal. Burbank is sharing in the cost of temporary additional staff at the Regional Water Quality Control Board to expedite investigations of sites with chromium-VI contamination as well as sharing in the cost of research on treatment technology. City of Glendale Glendale has emergency interconnections with Burbank and Crescenta Valley. The City is actively implementing water conservation programs for demand management. The City is a co-owner/operator with the City of Los Angeles in the Los Angeles/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant which provides recycled water. There may be opportunities to reduce costs and increase efficiencies by addressing service and infrastructure issues where the service areas of Glendale and the Crescenta Valley Water District overlap. Glendale is participating with the Cities of Los Angeles and Burbank, the EPA and the American Waterworks Research Foundation to develop new treatment technology for chromium-VI. The goal of this effort is to have complete treatment facility operating by 2008. December 2006 – Final Report 49 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power The City of Los Angeles actively participates in joint reciprocal service agreements to provide emergency services, including interconnections with most of the agencies adjacent to the City’s water service area. Los Angeles is participating with the Cities of Glendale and Burbank, the EPA and the American Waterworks Research Foundation to develop new treatment technology for chromium-VI. LADWP actively seeks grant, low interest loans, and other types of assistance from federal, state, and local agencies to reduce the ratepayers’ share of the cost of capital improvements. In 1999 the City of Los Angeles began using integrated resources planning, or interrelated planning for water supply, wastewater and stormwater. LADWP is partnering with the Bureau of Sanitation to develop an Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) that includes technical integration and community involvement, rather than single-purpose planning efforts. The City anticipates that it can meet its long- term needs through a more cost-effective and sustainable approach. City of San Fernando San Fernando uses both the Urban Water Management Plan and its Capital Improvement Program to identify cost avoidance opportunities. The City indicated there could be an opportunity to share recycled water facilities with Los Angeles to meet irrigation and other non-potable demands. The City additionally recognizes the potential value of pursuing grants for water production and distribution facilities in order to reduce the burden on ratepayers. City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica utilizes its 2005 UWMP, CIP, and Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) to identify demand management and cost avoidance opportunities. The MEA is used to verify existing conditions in the City, including infrastructure capacities and environmental indicators. The City of Santa Monica and the City of Los Angeles share in the cost of maintaining and operating the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF). The design and construction of the SMURRF was funded by the City of Santa Monica, City of Los Angeles, State Water Resources Control Board, Metropolitan Water District, Federal ISTEA Grant funds, and Los Angeles County Proposition A grant funds. The recycled water is used within Santa Monica. In 1994 Santa Monica adopted the Sustainable City Program, which includes goals in eight areas, including resource conservation. The 2003 Plan Update includes goals for a 20% reduction in overall water use by the Year 2010, and increased use of locally obtained potable water to 70% of total supply. December 2006 – Final Report 50 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District and Glendale are the only water rights holders in the Verdugo Basin and more efficiency might result if this water source were managed collaboratively. The District shares facilities with the City of Glendale and La Canada Irrigation District (LCID). An agreement has been established to share Glendale’s excess water supply capacity by constructing a permanent, metered emergency interconnection. The District plans to complete another interconnection with the City of Los Angeles by 2008. The District’s Water Conservation Alert System, which is used to reduce demand during peak periods, is a joint effort of FMWD, La Canada Irrigation District, Mesa Crest Water, and Valley Water Company. The District is a member of the local Raymond Basin Emergency Response Committee and the State of California Water Agency Response Network, which encourages water utility mutual aid and disaster preparedness. Crescenta Valley Water District’s water distribution system overlaps portions of the City of Glendale, with some areas having duplicate infrastructure. The District might recognize some cost savings if it no longer served this area as capital improvements would no longer be necessary and water supply costs would be lower, particularly if imported water purchases are avoided. However, this scenario would also require initial capital improvements to hydraulically connect CVWD pipelines to Glendale’s system and isolate them from the District’s system. The City of Glendale and CVWD operate adjacent, independent wastewater collection systems; both systems discharge directly to the City of Los Angeles for ultimate treatment and disposal. Some efficiencies and cost savings may be realized by having one utility (Glendale) operate and maintain the system as well as administer a single contract with Los Angeles. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21, along with the other five waterworks districts, is managed by the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, which allows overhead cost savings and shared management. District #21 has an emergency interconnection with the City of Los Angeles system, which was used to provide water for blending with local groundwater to meet DHS drinking water standards. The County has entered into a three-way agreement to purchase all of District #21’s water supply from the City of Glendale and wheel it through the City of Los Angeles system. This is more cost-effective than rehabilitating aging wells or upgrading treatment facilities. December 2006 – Final Report 51 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.5 MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCIES – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills Beverly Hills water management staff routinely meets with other Metropolitan member agencies to discuss various topics including water quality, water reliability, water management, and legislation. The meetings allow each of the member agencies to be updated with current issues, monitoring and reporting of progress and achievement of goals. The City has leveraged the benefits of a public/ private partnership to develop and operate a new water treatment facility that allows the City to use local groundwater resources and reduce dependence on imported water. City of Burbank As part of its management framework, Burbank Water and Power has a strategic plan including goals and objectives specific to environment, finance, leadership, operations, organization and water management. Goals, strategies and key performance measures are included within the City’s annual budget for each area of service. The water utility measures include preventive maintenance, fire hydrant maintenance, drinking water standards, water system chromium values, Burbank Operable Unit Capacity Factor for VOC removal, debt service coverage, safety, OSHA, customer service and water costs. City of Glendale Glendale Water and Power operates Glendale’s water, electric and power systems. A director with three administrators (one for each service) oversees operations. The Water Services Administrator is responsible for both field operations and office engineering sections, which are managed by the Water Superintendent and a Principal Civil Engineer. The City has received multiple awards in the past ten years, including the California Water Reuse Project of the Year in 1996 and the Consulting Engineers’ Engineering Excellence Merit Award in 2001 for the Glendale Water Treatment Plant. City of Los Angeles The LADWP Water Services Organization has adopted a five-year business plan that extends through 2008. The plan identifies ten priority areas: customer service, environmental responsibility, financial performance, infrastructure, internal communication, productivity, public responsibility, water quality, water supply and workforce development. Each of those areas is addressed including key measures and goals. This plan provides a framework and guidance for managing water services and maintaining service levels and quality. December 2006 – Final Report 52 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region LADWP meets regularly with other agencies such as the City of Los Angeles’ Department of Public Works (Bureau of Engineering, Bureau of Street Services), Department of Building and Safety and the Metropolitan Water District. LADPW also participates in cooperative agreements with other agencies that produce administrative, management and operational efficiencies such as mutual-aid in disaster situations, as well as agreements and physical connections for the exchange of water with neighboring cities. The City recently implemented the 311 call center which is a one-stop telephone number that the public may call to obtain information on various services. The system is able to route callers directly to liaisons within the various departments who can respond to questions and facilitate the resolution of complaints. City of San Fernando San Fernando utilizes Metropolitan as a resource for education, management, technical and technological issues. Due to the City’s size, staff is cross-trained for field services which allows for efficient use of labor resources. City of Santa Monica Santa Monica’s annual budget includes objectives, implementation strategies, and performance measures for each department. Objectives related to water service include addressing groundwater quality and MTBE treatment. Performance measures include feet of water main installed, amount of water conserved over prior year, percent of total water produced locally, and Sustainable City water demand. – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The operations of the Crescenta Valley Water District are routinely evaluated through ongoing communication between management and supervisory staff with respect to projects, schedules, funding and labor resources. The District’s overall performance is evaluated during the rate setting process. Staff receives formal written evaluations annually. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21 is operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, which allows for shared management and administrative efficiencies. Performance is evaluated by the County Auditor-Controller for financial operations and the State Department of Health Services for water quality. Productivity is monitored through a Maintenance Management System and a Financial Accounting System. The County has also developed a performance monitoring system. December 2006 – Final Report 53 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.6 RATE RESTRUCTURING The following Figure 3.3 - 2005 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill, compares retail rates from agencies in the Los Angeles MSR study area. Figure 3.3 – Los Angeles Region 2005 Typical Monthly Residential Water Bill (3/4” Meter and 20 HCF Usage) Santa Monica Burbank San Fernando Los Angeles Glendale Beverly Hills Crescenta Valley WD WWD #21 Kagel Canyon $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 Typical Monthly Charge It should be noted that there are many factors that affect water rates, including service area geography, age and condition of the system, customer demands, and agency standards. December 2006 – Final Report 54 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region – CITIES – City of Beverly Hills The City of Beverly Hills has increased water rates twice within the past year. Effective July 9, 2005, a fourth tier was added and rates were changed to increase revenues by 6%. The most recent rate change became effective on January 21, 2006 as a result of a $10.3 million increase in the final capital improvement budget and an estimated $2 million in costs being allocated to the Water Enterprise Fund. Residential rates increased approximately 25% and commercial rates increased 27%. Rates for service in West Hollywood are 25% higher due to the costs of providing water service outside of the City’s boundaries. City of Burbank Burbank’s water rates include a Water Availability Charge, Demand Charge, Quantity Charge, and Water Cost Adjustment Charge. The City has a flat per-unit rate for water usage. The Water Cost Adjustment Charge is used to compensate the City for varying costs associated with purchasing or producing water. The monthly adjustment may not increase or decrease more than 10% over the prior month’s rate. In 2003 the City Council approved a rate plan that includes an annual overall rate increase of 4.8% per year, over a 5-year period, to enable BWP to purchase water to replace stored groundwater credits. Recycled water is offered at approximately 85% of the potable water rate. City of Glendale Glendale’s residential water rates are comprised of three charges: a meter charge; a commodity or usage charge with two tiers; and a water adjustment charge that recovers the cost of purchasing imported water and pumping groundwater. The adjustment charge is calculated quarterly, based on the costs of the previous four months. Recycled water rates are approximately 75% of the potable water rates. City of Los Angeles LADWP water rates are structured into two tiers for all customer classes. Tier one consists of water procurement, water quality improvements and water security pass-through adjustment factors. Tier two has a seasonal component and includes the cost for new water supplies. There are no fixed monthly charges except for private fire service. Rates for single-dwelling unit residential customers are based on five lot size categories, three temperature zones, and household size. Adjustments are available for households with 7 persons or more. These rates vary between high season (June through October) and low season (November through May). First tier rates were increased for FY 2005-2006. Service provided outside City limits includes a surcharge of $0.60 per billing unit; this surcharge is adjusted annually. December 2006 – Final Report 55 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of San Fernando San Fernando’s water rate structure includes a two-tier commodity charge and service charge. In 1993 the City adopted an ordinance whereby all water rates and charges automatically increase each July 1st by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index. This helps to ensure that rates keep pace with cost increases, although the CPI increase may not fully cover actual cost increases. City of Santa Monica Santa Monica increased its water rates 6% in July 2005. The current rate structure includes a service charge plus three tiers for water use. The City recognizes that operating and capital expenses are projected to outpace revenues even after the rate increase. A Water Fund study of operations and rates is planned for FY 2005-2006 with implementation to occur in FY 2006-2007. – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District The Crescenta Valley Water District rate structure includes a fixed service charge and a flat per-unit usage charge. The service charge for water service outside the District is an additional $0.10 per month. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Waterworks District #21 does not charge connection fees, but does impose some or all of the following water supply fees: • Acreage Charges based on property usage and fire-flow protection requirements, computed on gross acreage; • Tank Capacity Unit Charges based on meter demands and fire-flow protection requirements; • Frontage Charges based on benefiting front footage, fire-flow protection requirements, and size of water main to supply fire-flow protection; and • Water System Engineering Charges including costs to review developments, establish water system construction requirements, check plans and other documents (easements), inspect construction work, process water service applications, and inspect installation of service connections and meters. In addition to a service charge and flat per-unit usage charge, District #21 collects $8.40 per month per connection for tank recoating; this charge was imposed for a period of ten years to recover the cost of the capital improvement project. December 2006 – Final Report 56 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.7 GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE OPTIONS Some of the agencies are providing service outside their current boundaries; per Government Code §56133 (e), out of agency agreements that were in place prior to January 1, 2001 do not require LAFCo approval. City of Burbank and City of Los Angeles The City of Los Angeles serves water to the southeast corner of Sherman Way and Vineland, within the City of Burbank. Los Angeles also serves a few homes in the area annexed from Los Angeles on Frederic Street above Scott Road. Both areas are within Burbank’s city limits but beyond the limits of Burbank’s water system. These properties have historically been served by Los Angeles. City of Santa Monica and City of Los Angeles Santa Monica provides retail service outside of its boundaries to areas within the City of Los Angeles where Los Angeles has no water facilities. The City should provide LAFCo with a map of these areas. Areas adjacent to the City of Los Angeles The City of Los Angeles is providing water service to areas adjacent to its existing service area where no other service provider has facilities. LADWP should provide LAFCO with a map of these areas. No alternative government structure options were noted, except as discussed below. Crescenta Valley Water District, City of Glendale and La Canada Irrigation District As shown on the following Figure 3-4, there are overlapping boundaries and service areas between the Crescenta Valley Water District and City of Glendale, and the Crescenta Valley Water District and the La Canada Irrigation District (LCID). The Crescenta Valley Water District initiated an annexation effort in 1996 for the overlapping service area in Glendale; however the effort was terminated due to lack of support from the City of Glendale which contended that the annexation did not resolve the ongoing service issues. The CVWD noted that there would be benefit from undertaking a study to determine the most cost-effective, efficient plan for service in the overlapping area. Benefits may include cost avoidance and shared facility opportunities with the City of Glendale/CVWD; shared water distribution and water storage facilities with the CVWD/LCID; and local partnership or reorganization of service providers for rate restructuring opportunities. A detailed feasibility study would need to be completed in order to analyze all aspects of potential reorganizations and to determine specific areas where customers will receive significant service and cost benefits. It is recommended that the three water agencies fund a feasibility study in preparation for a comprehensive sphere of influence update, including clarification of service areas and possible reorganizations. December 2006 – Final Report 57 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Figure 3-4 CVWD Service Area and Boundaries December 2006 – Final Report 58 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 3.8 LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The City water utilities are addressed by each City Council during their regular meetings. Local accountability and governance of the cities meets the required standards for public agencies, with appropriate elections and public notice of council meetings and actions. Water utility and water conservation information is available on the websites for the cities. Table 3-5 City Governance and Local Accountability # of City Council Council Meetings Website Members Beverly Hills 5 1st & 3rd Tuesdays, 7:30 pm http://www.beverlyhills.org/ Burbank 5 Every Tuesday, 6:30 pm http://www.ci.burbank.ca.us/ Glendale 5 Every Tuesday, 6:00 pm http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/ Los Angeles 15 Every Tues/Wed/Fri, 10:00 am http://www.lacity.org/ San Fernando 5 1st & 3rd Mondays, 6:00 pm http://www.ci.san-fernando.ca.us/ Santa Monica 5 2nd & 4th Tuesdays, 5:45 pm http://santa-monica.org/ Additional oversight is also provided for the Water and Power departments: Burbank Water and Power Members of the Burbank Water and Power Board are appointed by the City Council to serve four-year terms. The Board’s primary powers and duties include the following: • Review and make recommendations on all capital improvements which require Council approval; purchased power agreements with terms of more than two years; BWP Annual Budget; and water and electric rates. • Approve all contract awards for goods, services and public work construction projects included in BWP Annual Budget. Regular board meetings are held the first Thursday of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the BWP conference Room at 164 West Magnolia Boulevard. The current BWP Board is as follows: Board Title Term Expiration Compensation Robert Olson Chairperson 06/2009 None Vahe Hovanessian Vice Chairperson 06/2007 None Lee Dunayer Member 06/2007 None Rod Kurihara Member 06/2007 None Thomas Jamentz Member 06/2009 None Wendy M. James Member 06/2007 None Martin L. Adams Member 06/2009 None Information on BWP and water service is available online at www.burbankwaterandpower.com. December 2006 – Final Report 59 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Glendale Water and Power The Glendale Water and Power Commission acts as an advisory body to GWP and the City Council. The commissioners are appointed to serve three year terms by the City Council. Meetings are held on the first Monday of each month in the Glendale City Council Chambers at 4:00 p.m. The Commission is charged with the responsibility of making recommendations to the City Council on matters regarding changes or improvements in the City’s water utility and related financing. The Commission also makes recommendations on changes to operational policies. The current GWP Commission is as follows: Commission Title Term Expiration Compensation Anthony Dellinger Commissioner 06/2008 None Patrick Foley Commissioner 07/2009 None Vrej G. Gregorian Commissioner 07/2007 None John Miller Commissioner 02/2007 None Vacant Commissioner None Information on GWP and water service is available online at www.ci.glendale.ca.us/gwp/default.asp. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is governed by the Board of Water and Power Commissioners. The Board members are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council to serve five-year terms. Meetings are held on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 1:30 p.m. at 111 Hope Street. The current Board is as follows: Commission Title Term Expiration Compensation Mary D. Nichols President 06/2009 None H. David Nahai Vice President 06/2007 None Nick Patsaouras Commissioner 06/2008 None Edith Ramirez Commissioner 06/2010 None Forescee Hogan-Rowles Commissioner 06/2010 None – SPECIAL DISTRICTS – Crescenta Valley Water District Date formed: December 26, 1950 Statutory Authorization: Water Code § 30000 et seq. – County Water District Law Board Meetings: 1st and 3rd Tuesday of each month, 7:00 p.m. The Crescenta Valley Water District is an independent special district governed by a Board of Directors elected at-large by voters within the District. Meeting notices are posted at the front display case on the Friday preceding the meeting date. Bi-monthly newsletters are published and distributed in the monthly bills to customers and posted on the website. December 2006 – Final Report 60 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Board of Directors: Title Term Expiration Compensation* Ernest M. Weber Director 12/2009 $100/mtg Rich Atwater Director 12/2009 $100/mtg Vasken Yardemian Director 12/2009 $100/mtg Judy L. Tejeda Director 12/2007 $100/mtg Kathleen Ross Director 12/2007 $100/mtg * Maximum $400 per month Information on the District and its services is available on the District’s website www.cvwd.com. Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon Date formed: NP Statutory Authorization: Water Code § 55000 et seq. – County Waterworks District Law Board Meetings: Every Tuesday, 9:30 am Waterworks District #21 is a dependent special district, formed under Division 16 of the California Water Code (County Waterworks District Law). The County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body, and Supervisors are elected within each district every four years. There is a broad range of means to communicate with constituents including live broadcasts over cable television, minutes posted on the County website, public hearings, and information sent directly to potentially impacted constituents. Board meetings are held every Tuesday in Alhambra. The Board conducts the business of the County, of which the waterworks district is a small component. Information on the Waterworks Districts is available on the Department of Public Works’ website (http://ladpw.org/WWD/WaterworksDists/). December 2006 – Final Report 61 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 4.0 DETERMINATIONS In approving a Municipal Service Review, LAFCO must adopt written determinations for the nine factors specified in LAFCO’s governing statutes. Determinations for each agency are provided below: City of Beverly Hills DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Beverly Hills provides water service to the City and a portion of West Hollywood. The City is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.33%, with a population of 46,768 persons in its water service area in 2025. The City is primarily residential; growth will occur through redevelopment and densification. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Water supply for Beverly Hills includes local groundwater from the Deficiencies Hollywood Basin and imported water. The City is reducing its dependence on imported water and has a five-year CIP to provide for system needs and improvements. 3) Financing Constraints and The City has long term debt associated with water system Opportunities improvements, including a capital lease for the Public Works Facility and Water Treatment Plant. The City’s Water Utility has reserves that could be used for future financing needs. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance Beverly Hills developed its Public Works Facility and Water Treatment Opportunities and Shared Plant through a design-build-own-operate agreement with a private Facilities entity. Water costs are comparable to imported water rates. 6) Management Efficiencies Beverly Hills meets with other Metropolitan member agencies on issues such as water quality, supply reliability, water management and legislation. This provides valuable input to assist the staff in managing the water utility. 7) Rate Restructuring Beverly Hills reviews water rates regularly; rates have increased twice in the past year due to cost increases. Rates for service outside City boundaries are 25% higher. 8) Government Structure No government structure options were noted. Options 9) Local Accountability and Beverly Hills’ water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. Governance The City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. December 2006 – Final Report 62 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Burbank DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Burbank is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.68%, which is slightly lower than the SCAG projection of 0.83%. Population is expected to reach 121,348 by 2025. The greatest amount of growth is expected to be in the commercial area with land use intensification and an increasing amount of mixed use development. New residential development will be predominantly multi-family. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Burbank’s water supply includes groundwater from the San Fernando Deficiencies Basin, imported water and recycled water. In order to maintain and optimize groundwater pumping and treatment, the City needs to acquire an additional 7,400 AF of groundwater per year. The City intends to hold 10,000 AF of groundwater credits in reserve, which would allow for normal extractions over an 18-month period without replenishment. Groundwater quality is a critical issue. Burbank has two water treatment plants. One plant is currently not used as it was not designed to provide treatment for chromium-VI. There have been operational issues for the other plant, which the City is working to correct. Chromium-VI regulations due out in 2006 may require the City to upgrade its treatment equipment in order to meet DHS standards. 3) Financing Constraints and Burbank has reserves for its water utility that could be used for future Opportunities financing needs. The City has financed capital improvements with revenue bonds in the past, but currently is using a pay-as-you go approach. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance Burbank has emergency interconnections with the City of Glendale; an Opportunities and Shared additional intertie with the City of Los Angeles would be beneficial. Facilities The City is sharing in the cost for chromium-VI site investigations and treatment research. 6) Management Efficiencies Burbank Water and Power has adopted a strategic plan which includes goals and objectives for environment, finance, leadership, operations, organization and water management. The City’s annual budget includes key performance measures for each service. These planning efforts provide management guidance and reveal opportunities to improve efficiencies. 7) Rate Restructuring Burbank’s water rate structure includes a meter, demand, usage and Water Cost Adjustment Charge that is used to purchase and produce potable water as well as purchase replenishment groundwater. The City December 2006 – Final Report 63 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Council approved a 4.8% rate increase for FY 2006-2007 which is the fifth consecutive annual increase in the City Council’s five-year approved plan to replenish groundwater and balance groundwater pumping credits with water demands. 8) Government Structure No government structure options were noted. Options 9) Local Accountability and Burbank’s water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. The Governance City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. The seven-member Burbank Water and Power Board provides additional oversight of BWP and guidance to the City Council on water utility matters. December 2006 – Final Report 64 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Glendale DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Glendale, the third largest city in Los Angeles County, is projecting a population of 219,000 in 2025, with an average annual growth rate of 0.36%. The City has one of the highest concentrations of multi-family housing; growth will occur through commercial development and an increase in multi-family residential. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Glendale’s water supply is comprised of groundwater, imported water Deficiencies and recycled water. The City holds water rights in the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins. The combination of import return flow credit, physical solution water, unlimited extraction for groundwater cleanup, and up to 10% over-extraction in one year allow the City to extract sufficient water to meet demands. Groundwater quality is a critical issue, with water treated at the Glendale Water Treatment Plant. Chromium-VI regulations due out in 2006 may require the City to upgrade its treatment equipment in order to meet DHS standards. 3) Financing Constraints and As of June 30, 2005, Glendale’s water utility long term liabilities were Opportunities only related to compensated absences and post-employment benefits, not infrastructure. In 2003 the City adopted a reserve policy for rate stabilization and contingencies, with reserve levels established annually. The Water Utility capital improvement fund is funded by water system depreciation costs and other revenue; this fund provides a dedicated revenue source for system improvements. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance Glendale and Los Angeles co-own and operate the Los Angeles/ Opportunities and Shared Glendale Water Reclamation Plant which provides recycled water. Facilities There may be opportunities to reduce costs and increase efficiencies by addressing overlapping service areas with the Crescenta Valley Water District. 6) Management Efficiencies Glendale Water and Power is managed by a director overseeing three administrators for the water, electric and power systems. These administrators are supported by staff within each service area. 7) Rate Restructuring Glendale’s water rate structure includes a meter charge, two-tiered usage charge and a water adjustment charge to recover the cost of purchasing imported water and producing groundwater. December 2006 – Final Report 65 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 8) Government Structure Glendale has overlapping service areas with the Crescenta Valley Water Options District, with the District serving approximately 2,300 accounts within the City’s boundaries. In preparation of a comprehensive sphere update, Glendale should help fund a feasibility study to evaluate service areas, efficiencies, and cost benefits as well as possible reorganizations. 9) Local Accountability and Glendale’s water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. The Governance City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. The five-member Glendale Water and Power Commission provides additional oversight of GWP and guidance to the City Council on water utility matters. December 2006 – Final Report 66 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Los Angeles DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Los Angeles is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.37% over the next 20 years with an estimated population of approximately 4.27 million in 2025. Over 50% of land use in the City is residential. Multi- family housing is expected to increase at nearly twice the rate of single family housing over the next 25 years. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Los Angeles’ water sources include surface water from the eastern Deficiencies Sierras delivered through the Los Angeles Aqueduct system, local groundwater, imported water and recycled water. The City holds water rights in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley, as well as six local groundwater basins. Approximately 166,000 AFY of the City’s water supply is committed for environmental enhancement in the Mono Basin and Owens Valley. The City is pursuing water transfers to replace a portion of this water. The water system infrastructure that is currently in place for the City of Los Angeles has been designed to account for the future growth of the City based on its General Plan. Local groundwater quality is a critical issue, particularly in the San Fernando Valley. The City has established operating goals for VOCs that are 33% to 40% higher than the maximum contaminant limits allowed by state and federal regulations. 3) Financing Constraints and Los Angeles uses revenue bonds and loans to finance major capital Opportunities improvements. The water utility had restricted net assets of $207 million at June 30, 2005, including $50 million for debt service and $144.4 million for pensions and post-employment benefits. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance The City of Los Angeles actively participates in joint reciprocal service Opportunities and Shared agreements to provide emergency services and has emergency Facilities interconnections with most of the agencies surrounding the City’s service area. The City is collaborating with other cities on research regarding the extent of chromium-VI contamination and treatment technologies. Los Angeles actively participates in integrated resource planning and conjunctive use programs to leverage water resources and control costs. 6) Management Efficiencies LADWP has adopted a five-year business plan that identifies key measures and goals in ten priority areas. December 2006 – Final Report 67 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region LADWP staff meets regularly with other city departments and participates in cooperative agreements that result in administrative, management and operational efficiencies. 7) Rate Restructuring Los Angeles uses a two-tiered rate structure with no fixed monthly charges except for private fire services. Rates are based on five lot size categories, three temperature zones, and household size. Rates vary between high season (June – October) and low season (November – May). 8) Government Structure No government structure options were noted. Options 9) Local Accountability and Los Angeles’ water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. Governance The City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. The five-member Board of Water & Power Commissioners provides additional oversight of LADWP and guidance to the City Council on water utility policy. December 2006 – Final Report 68 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of San Fernando DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth The City of San Fernando is projecting a population of 26,883 in 2025, with an average annual growth rate of 0.37%. The City is primarily residential, and growth will be due to infill development and rezoning from single to multi-family residential. 2) Infrastructure Needs and The City of San Fernando’s water supply includes local groundwater Deficiencies from the Sylmar Basin and imported water. The City shares rights to the Sylmar Basin with the City of Los Angeles. The City is continuing to implement a water meter and water main replacement program begun in 1982. The City has budgeted for system improvements. 3) Financing Constraints and The only long-term liability associated with San Fernando’s water utility Opportunities is a $1.5 million internal loan from the Sewer Fund. The Water Utility has reserves that could be used for future financing needs. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance The City of San Fernando uses both its Urban Water Management Plan Opportunities and Shared and Capital Improvement Program to identify cost avoidance Facilities opportunities. There could be an opportunity to share recycled water facilities with Los Angeles to meet irrigation and other non-potable demands. 6) Management Efficiencies San Fernando utilizes Metropolitan as a resource for education, management, technical and technological issues. 7) Rate Restructuring San Fernando’s water rate structure includes a service charge and two- tiered commodity charge. Water rates and charges are automatically adjusted annually by the increase in the Consumer Price Index. 8) Government Structure No government structure options were identified. Options 9) Local Accountability and San Fernando’s water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. Governance The City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. December 2006 – Final Report 69 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region City of Santa Monica DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Santa Monica has the lowest projected growth rate in the study area. The City projects an average annual growth rate of 0.14% with a Year 2025 population of 91,500. SCAG is projecting a growth rate of 0.22%. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Santa Monica’s water supply includes groundwater from the Santa Deficiencies Monica Basin, imported water and recycled water. The Santa Monica Basin is not adjudicated and no safe yield has been established; there are no limits on groundwater production. Groundwater quality is a critical issue due to the presence of MTBE. The City has entered into a settlement agreement with the responsible parties such that they will pay for the design, construction and operation of a water treatment facility as well as the costs to purchase treated water. Recycled water is available from the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility, which is jointly owned and operated with the City of Los Angeles. The City has established goals to reduce water consumption 20% by 2010 and increase the use of local groundwater to 70% of total supply. 3) Financing Constraints and Santa Monica had no long-term liabilities associated with its water Opportunities utility as of June 30, 2005. The Water Utility did have an operating loss for FY 2004-2005, with $6 million in reserves. A special fund has been established for the groundwater treatment and costs related to the settlement agreement. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance Santa Monica uses the UWMP, CIP, and MEA to identify cost Opportunities and Shared avoidance opportunities. Facilities Santa Monica and Los Angeles jointly own and operate the Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF), which treats urban runoff water and provides recycled water for use within Santa Monica. The City’s Sustainable City Program includes resource conservation and provides goals for water conservation and recycled water use. 6) Management Efficiencies Santa Monica’s annual budget includes objectives, implementation strategies and performance measures for each department. This provides direction and guidance for water utility management. December 2006 – Final Report 70 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 7) Rate Restructuring Santa Monica’s water rate structure includes a service charge plus three tiers for water usage. A Water Fund study of operations and rates is planned for FY 2005-2006. 8) Government Structure No government structure options were noted. Options 9) Local Accountability and Santa Monica’s water utility is addressed during City Council meetings. Governance The City has procedures for ensuring that standards of local accountability and governance are met, including making water utility and conservation information available online. December 2006 – Final Report 71 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Crescenta Valley Water District DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth Crescenta Valley Water District is projecting an average annual growth rate of 0.21% over the next 20 years; the SCAG projection for unincorporated area in the Arroyo Verdugo subregion is considerably higher at 0.85%. The service area is primarily residential and growth will occur through development of multi-family housing. 2) Infrastructure Needs and The Crescenta Valley Water District provides retail water service to a Deficiencies 4.2 square mile service area, including the unincorporated areas of La Crescenta and Montrose, and portions of the Cities of Glendale and La Canada Flintridge. The District’s source of water supply includes groundwater from the Verdugo Basin and imported water purchased from the Foothill Municipal Water District. The District shares water rights in the Verdugo Basin with Glendale. Groundwater quality is a concern due to high nitrate levels and the presence of VOCs. Groundwater is either blended with imported water or treated at the District’s Glenwood Nitrate Reclamation Facility. The District is able to meet peak summertime demands if the system is operating normally. Reliability may be impaired if supplies from Glendale or FMWD were reduced during an emergency. Adequate water storage and supply is critical in the service area due to wildfire danger. The District has emergency interties with Glendale and the La Canada Irrigation District. The District is seeking funding for an emergency intertie to the City of Los Angeles system. 3) Financing Constraints and The Crescenta Valley Water District has long term debt related to a Opportunities revenue bond, which matures in 2008. The District has established minimum cash reserve levels for the following: emergency reserves, two months of working cash, and drought contingency/rate stabilization. The District has successfully pursued grants to study the Verdugo Basin, which improves the District’s ability to plan for and manage its water supply while reducing the cost burden on the ratepayers. December 2006 – Final Report 72 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 4, 5) Cost Avoidance The Crescenta Valley Water District and Glendale are the only water Opportunities and Shared rights holders in the Verdugo Basin and more efficiency might result if Facilities this water source were managed collaboratively. An agreement has been established to share Glendale’s and CVWD’s excess water supply capacity by constructing a permanent, metered emergency interconnection. Crescenta Valley Water District’s water distribution system overlaps portions of the City of Glendale, with some areas having duplicate infrastructure. The District might recognize some cost savings if it no longer served this area as capital improvements would no longer be necessary and water supply costs would be lower, particularly if imported water purchases are avoided. 6) Management Efficiencies The Crescenta Valley Water District is achieving management efficiencies through routine evaluations by management and supervisory staff regarding projects, funding, schedules and labor resources. 7) Rate Restructuring The Crescenta Valley Water District’s rate structure includes a fixed service charge and flat per-unit usage charge. Water rates for service outside the District’s boundaries include a $0.10 surcharge. 8) Government Structure The Crescenta Valley Water District has overlapping service areas with Options the City of Glendale and the La Canada Irrigation District. The CVWD serves approximately 2,300 accounts within Glendale’s boundaries. In preparation of a comprehensive sphere update, the CVWD should help fund a feasibility study to evaluate service areas, efficiencies, and cost benefits as well as possible reorganizations. 9) Local Accountability and The Crescenta Valley Water District Board of Directors has established Governance processes for ensuring local accountability and governance. District meetings are open and accessible to the public and information on water service and conservation is available online. December 2006 – Final Report 73 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region Waterworks District #21 Kagel Canyon DETERMINATIONS 1) Population and Growth District #21 serves an estimated population of 761 in a 0.2 square mile service area. Although the County did not provide growth projections, future growth is expected to be limited due to building constraints in the canyon. 2) Infrastructure Needs and Waterworks District #21 receives its water supply from three Deficiencies groundwater wells, all of which have structural, nitrate and bacteria issues. The District has an emergency interconnection with the City of Los Angeles, which is used regularly for blending to meet DHS drinking water standards. The County is working to establish an agreement with the City of Glendale to purchase 100% of District #21’s supply, wheeling it through the City of Los Angeles’ system. 3) Financing Constraints and $140,000 in bonds has been authorized for Waterworks District #21 Opportunities system improvements, with $60,000 sold. Operational and capital activities are accounted for through enterprise funds within the County of Los Angeles budget. Reserves are estimated at $45,000 in the FY 2005-2006 budget. 4, 5) Cost Avoidance Waterworks District #21 is managed by the County of Los Angeles Opportunities and Shared Department of Public Works, which allows overhead cost savings and Facilities shared management. The County is developing an agreement to purchase all of District #21’s water supply from the City of Glendale and wheel it through the City of Los Angeles system. This may be more cost-effective than rehabilitating aging wells or upgrading treatment facilities. 6) Management Efficiencies Waterworks District #21 is operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, which allows for shared management and administrative efficiencies. 7) Rate Restructuring Waterworks District #21 charges a service charge and flat per-unit usage charge, as well as an $8.40 per month per connection charge for tank recoating; this charge was imposed for a period of ten years to recover the cost of the capital improvement project. December 2006 – Final Report 74 Los Angeles LAFCO Municipal Service Review Water Service – Los Angeles Region 8) Government Structure No other public water service providers were identified that could serve Options this unincorporated area, and no government structure options were noted. 9) Local Accountability and Waterworks District #21 is addressed during County Board of Governance Supervisors meetings. The County has a process established for ensuring that local accountability and governance standards are met, including making waterworks district and conservation information available online. December 2006 – Final Report 75