5-18-2021 AGENDA ITEM NO.18 - CONSIDERATION OF WEST COVINA CITYWIDE SERVICE CHARGE SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON THE METHOD OF COLLECTION AND FEE INCREASEAGENDA ITEM NO. 18
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager
DATE: May 18, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Carmany
City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF WEST COVINA CITYWIDE SEWER SERVICE CHARGE SETTING
A PUBLIC HEARING DATE ON THE METHOD OF COLLECTION AND FEE INCREASE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO.2021-47 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO COLLECT SEWER
SERVICE CHARGES ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AND SETTING
JUNE 15, 2021 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CHARGES TO BE SO COLLECTED
BACKGROUND:
From 1968 to 1978, the City of West Covina funded the costs of sewer maintenance and operation through the
Improvement Act of 1911, which provided an ad valorem (according to value) levy used to pay for these costs.
With the passage of Proposition 13, the revenues generated from the 1911 Act were reduced considerably and made
it necessary to find an alternative method of funding sewer maintenance and operation costs. In Fiscal Year
1978-1979, the City Council established the Citywide Sewer Service Charge pursuant to Section 38902 of the
Government Code as that alternative method.
The Sewer Service Charge funds the maintenance and operation of the City's sewer system assuring that lines are
clear and flowing properly. This includes routine video inspections, jetting, and cleaning of sewer lines. The fees
also fund capital improvements including purchase of sewer equipment and rehabilitation/replacement of sewer
mainlines and appurtenances.
The Sewer Service Charge is based on general land use categories: residential and non-residential. A fixed fee is
charged for each dwelling unit for residential property and every 667 square feet of floor area for other types of
non-residential developments. Additionally, properties not connected to the sewer main lines are exempt from the
charge.
DISCUSSION:
State law requires that a specific procedure be followed to collect the Citywide Sewer Service Charge on the annual
property tax bill. The initial step is to adopt a resolution setting a date for a public hearing on the proposed rates
and method of collection. The process requires that a public notice be published in a locally circulated newspaper
announcing the public hearing. Mailing notices to each property owner is only required when the charges are
increased above the current Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Although sewer charges are exempt from voter approval under Proposition 218, if a new or increased sewer charge
is to be imposed (more than the CPI), the City Council must conduct a protest hearing 45 days after mailed notice
to property owners. If more than 50% of the property owners protest against the fees, the fees may not be imposed.
In addition, the property owners are given an opportunity to voice their concerns on the method of collection. The
most efficient and least costly method of collecting the Citywide Sewer Service Charge is to place it on the annual
property tax bill. The Citywide Sewer Service Charge will then be collected at the same time and in the same
manner as the general property taxes.
In June 2017, the City Council conducted a protest hearing regarding a proposed increase in the rates for five
years, commencing with a 20% increase for Fiscal Year 2017-2018 and 5% thereafter for four years beginning
Fiscal Year 2018-2019. The City did not receive majority protest against the proposed increase, so the City may
impose the Sewer Service Charge at the maximum proposed level or less until Fiscal Year 2021-2022. The rate
increase is consistent with the previously approved five-year budget and is based on the Sewer System Revenue
Sufficiency Analysis (Analysis) in conjunction with the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) as conducted by
Willdan Engineering. As part of the SSMP, Willdan Engineering, in conjunction with the City, identified a series of
sewer capital projects that comprise the Sewer Capital Improvement Program in the total amount of $13,689,100.
In order to reduce the impact of initial assessment increase, the working capital balance is allowed to fall below 9
months of operating expenses, targeting a working capital balance of 6 months of operating expenses.
The proposed annual increase to the Sewer Service Charge is from $78.12 to $82.02 (an increase of about 32 cents
per month or $3.90 per year) for residential dwelling units, and per 667 square feet of floor area for commercial
units.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the resolution and approved it as to form.
OPTIONS:
The City Council has the following options:
1. Increase assessment rate by 5% based on the Sewer System Revenue Sufficiency Analysis as previously
approved to increase revenues and stabilize the reserves. Staff is recommending this option.
2. Maintain the assessment rates at their current level; reserves would be depleted sooner and result in the need
to reduce services or subsidize the district with General Funds.
Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:
For Fiscal Year 2021-2022, the Citywide Sewer Service Charge rates are proposed to be increased by 5% from
$78.12 to $82.02 per unit per year and generate an additional $184,847 in sewer service charge. The previous
fiscal year fund balance is $2,258,624. The total proposed sewer rate is projected to generate a total of
$3,884,780. In addition, $210,000 is projected to be received from the pre-existing ad valorem (according to
value) and $4,517 from cash balance interest. The total projected revenue is $4,099,297.
The preliminary operating budget for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 is $2,322,925. This includes an administration and
overhead charge of $139,901. The administration and overhead costs are derived from support services provided
by various departments including: City Manager's office, City Attorney's office, City Clerk's office, Finance
Department, and Human Resources Department. Support services include, but not limited to payroll, personnel
recruitment, insurance claims, audits, budgets, and purchasing. The annual administration cost is $7,177.50 and
will be paid from Account No. 189.71.4133.6110.
There is one Capital Improvement Projects scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2021-2022:
1. Sewer Main Replacement — Portions of Glenview Rd., Michelle St., Azusa Ave.
Budget: $2,000,000
The ending fund balance for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 of $2, 258,624 will be used to fund upcoming scheduled
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) according to the Sewer Maintenance Capital Improvement Program from the
2016 SSMP.
The Preliminary Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 contains the following components:
1. Budget and Revenue Summary
2. Capital Improvement Project Fund
3. Proposed Assessment Rate
4. Revised Projected Reserve (Fiscal Year 2021-2022)
5. Preliminary Sewer Charge Roll
There are no legal requirements or formal guidelines for the amount of reserves; however, at least 50% is required
to cover cash flow. A reserve between 100% and 200% is recommended by staff to cover cash flow, future capital
improvement projects, emergencies, and as a benefit it also provides interest income.
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - 15 Year Rate History
Attachment No. 2 - Preliminary Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
Attachment No. 3 - Sewer Maintenance CIP from 2016 SSMP
Attachment No. 4 - Resolution No. 2021-47
Attachment No. 5 - 10 Year Fiscal Projection
Attachment No. 6 - Sewer Capacity Evaluation (Edited in October 2016)
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Enhance City Facilities and Infrastructure
Enhance the City Image and Effectiveness
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
West Covina
Citywide Sewer Service Charges
15 Rate History
Unit/Month
Unit/Year
2021-22
$6.84
$82.02
2020-21
$6.51
$78.12
2019-20
$6.20
$74.40
2018-19
$5.91
$70.86
2017-18
$5.62
$67.49
2016-17
$4.69
$56.24
2015-16
$4.61
$55.30
2014-15
$4.59
$55.02
2013-14
$4.54
$54.48
2012-13
$4.44
$53.31
2011-12
$4.36
$52.26
2010-11
$4.19
$50.25
2009-10
$3.81
$45.68
2008-09
$2.76
$33.10
2007-08
$2.34
$28.05
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
City of West Covina
Citywide Sewer Service Charge
FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022
PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL REPORT
Intent Meeting: May 18, 2021
Public Hearing: June 15, 2021
W WILLDAN
BUDGET AND REVENUE SUMMARY
Previous Fiscal Year Fund Balance
Revenues
Assessment Income (Total Balance to Levy)
Property Tax Revenue (Ad Valorem)
Interest
Total Projected Revenue
Expenditures
Operating
Maintenance
Personnel Services
Material and Services
Professional Services
Maintenance Contracts
Utilities
Vehicles
Fuel and Oil
Property & Liability Insurance
Total Maintenance
Engineering & Incidental
Personnel Services
Materials & Services
Consultant Services
Property & Liability Insurance
Administration & Overhead
Total Engineering & Incidental
Community Enhancement
Personnel Services
Total Community Enhancement
Capital Improvement t't
Total Operating and Capital Budget
Fund Balance
(1) See Capital Improvement Project Fund Section
$3,884,780
210,000
4,517
$1,089,520
43,989
291,852
105,541
10,000
24,700
15,617
146,098
$1,727,317
$383,553
10,330
23,767
5,272
139,901
$562,823
$32,785
$32,785
$2,000,000
11Y W I LLDAN
$2,258,624
$4,099,297
$4,322,925
2.034.996
2021-22 City of West Covina -Citywide Sewer Service Charge Page 1
W WILLDAN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND
For Fiscal Year 2021-22, below are the Capital Improvement Projects scheduled:
Sewer Main Replacement -
Portions of Glenview Rd, $2,000,000
Michelle St, and Azusa Ave
2021-22 City of West Covina -Citywide Sewer Service Charge Page 2
W"WILLDAN
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RATE
In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-18, the Citywide Sewer Service Charge (the "Sewer Service
Charge") rate was increased by 20% and is proposed to increase by 5% thereafter for
four (4) years. For FY 2021-22, the rate will increase from $78.12 to $82.02 per unit, for
an increase of approximately 32 cents per month or $3.90 per year. The following table
shows proposed rate increases:
Residential 1 DU = 1 unit
Commercial 667 sq ft = 1 unit
Notice of said increases were sent to landowners in FY 2017-18 in accordance with the
provisions of Proposition 218 indicating the proposed rates and the date of public hearing.
The City of West Covina (the "City") did not receive majority protest against the proposed
increase, the City may now impose the Sewer Service Charge at the maximum proposed
level or less.
REVISED PROJECTED RESERVE
Fund Balance (as of 6/30/21) $2,258,624
Projected Revenue for FY 2021-22 4,099,297
Appropriations (Operating & Capital) for FY 2021-22 (4,322,925)
Projected Fund Balance (as of 6/30/22) $2,034,996
PRELIMINARY SEWER CHARGE ROLL
The FY 2021-22 preliminary sewer charge roll is voluminous, has been submitted to the
City Clerk, and is hereby included by reference.
2021-22 City of West Covina - Citywide Sewer Service Charge Page 3
Memorandum
January 31, 2017
Sewer System Revenue Sufficiency Analysis
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
VWILLDAN - -
Financial Services I neon
$
9oo,000 $-
Cameron Avenue Sewer Rehabilitation
Azusa Lift Station Construction
600,000
-
-
-
-
- -
ClosedCircuitTVinspection
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000
100,000 100,000
New Sewer Maintenance Truck and
190,000
-
-
-
-
- -
Camera
Sewer Cured In Place Pipe Lining
152,600
152,600
152,600
152,600
152,600
152,600 152,600
-
1,345,200
-
-
-
- -
82-1; Sewer Main Replacement Area 82
POWER; I nstall Emergency Backup
-
64,800
-
-
-
- -
Power at City Lift Stations
SCADA; I nsta II SCADA Cc ntrols at City
-
56,700
56,700
-
56,700
56,700 -
Lift Stations
4-1; Sewer Me in Replacement Area 4
-
-
286,400
-
-
- -
80- I; Sewer Main Replacement Area 80
-
-
-
-
-
- -
116-3; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
254,000
-
-
- -
62-2; Sewer Main Replacement Area 62
-
-
-
191,800
-
- -
116-2; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
-
825,000
-
- -
132-1; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
-
390,700
-
- -
117-1; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
-
-
939,100
- -
82-3; Sewer Me in Replacement Area 82
-
-
-
-
-
804,200 -
82-4; Sewer Me in Replacement Area 82
-
-
-
-
-
399,200 -
62- I; Sewer Main Replacement Area 62
-
-
-
-
-
- 1,359,800
82-2; Sewer Main Replacement Area 82
-
-
-
-
-
- -
116-1; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
-
-
-
- -
161-1; Sewer Me in Replacement Area
-
-
-
-
-
- -
100,000 100,000
152,600 152,600
64,800 259,200
56,700 56,700
1,391,400
666,000
143,900
Total $ 1,942,600 $ 1,719,300 $ 849,700 $ 1,660,100 $ 1,248,400 $ 1,512,700 $ 1,612,400 $ 1,765,500 $ 1,378,400
Outstanding Debt Service
Based on review of the City's financial documents, as well as discussions with the City, it is our understanding
that the City does not have any outstanding sewer related debt. For the purpose of this Analysis, any forecasted
future debt is assumed to have a 1.50X debt service coverage requirement.
General Assumptions
In order to develop the financial and rate projections, certain assumptions were made with regard to elements
of the Analysis. A summary of those assumptions is presented below.
Growth
Based on discussion with the City, the Utility is mostly built -out. As such, it was assumed that growth in the
Utility's customer base, and requisite flows, would be 0.0% per year during the forecast period.
Operating Projections
For the purposes of forecasting Operating requirements of the Utility, the following escalation factors are
use for the various budget line -items.
Personnel Services - 5.0%
Materials & Services- 3.0%
Capital Assets - 2.0%
Allocations - 3.0%
Filename: Technical Memo 01-31-2017 VIS
Page 15
ATTACHMENT NO.4
RESOLUTION NO.2021-47
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS
INTENTION TO COLLECT SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
ON THE COUNTY TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
AND SETTING JUNE 15, 2021 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
REGARDING THE CHARGES TO BE SO COLLECTED
WHEREAS, on June 26, 1978, in accordance with Section 38902 of the California
Government Code, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5726, establishing a sewer service
charge exclusively for sewer operation, maintenance, and capital costs. The City collects the sewer
service charge as part of the property tax roll; and
WHEREAS, on April 27,1987, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8019, amending
Resolution No. 5726 to adjust the schedule of charges so that the fees collected bear a reasonable
relationship to the cost of providing the services; and
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2017-55, adopting
a five-year schedule of annual sewer service charges for Fiscal Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20,
2020-21, and 2021-22; and
WHEREAS, the five-year schedule was adopted following proceedings conducted
pursuant to Article XM D, Section 6(a) of the California Constitution, which was added to the
California Constitution in 1996 as part of Proposition 218; and
WHEREAS, a report has been filed with the City Clerk containing a description of each
parcel of real property receiving sewer services and the amount of the charge for each parcel for
the year, computed in conformity with the charges adopted by the City Council (the 'Report");
and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to initiate proceedings to collect the sewer service
charges on the property tax roll for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5471 and other applicable law,
the City Council intends to collect its sewer service charges for Fiscal Year 2021-22 at the
following rate:
Rate: $82.02 per unit
Residential: One dwelling unit equals one unit
Commercial: 667 sq. ft. of floor area equals one unit
SECTION 2. As authorized by Health and Safety Code section 5473 or other applicable
law, the City Council elects to have the City's sewer service charges collected on the tax roll in
the same manner, and by the same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not
separately from, the City's general taxes.
SECTION 3. On June 15, 2021, at 7:00 p.m in the City Council Chambers located at
1444 West Garvey Avenue South in the City of West Covina, the City Council will conduct a
public hearing on the Report (the "Hearing'). At the Hearing, the City Council will hear and
consider all objections or protests, if any, to the Report.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall give notice of said Hearing in the time, form, and
manner as required bylaw.
SECTION 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter
the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 2021.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Letty Lopez-Viado
Mayor
ATTEST
Thomas P. Duarte Lisa Sherrick
City Attorney Assistant City Clerk
I, LISA SHERRICK, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK of the City of West Covina, California,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2021-47 was duly adopted by the City Council
of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of May,
2021, by the following vote of the City Council:
Lisa Sherrick
Assistant City Clerk
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Assessment Income
Interest(1)
Property Tax Revenue (Ad Valorem)
Prior Year Balance
Total Funding
Maintenance Costs (2)
Capital Improvements
Total Cost
West Covina Citywide Sewer Charges
10 Year Fiscal Proiection
780 $3,884,780 $3,884,780
780
4,517
4,070
3,482
2,750
1,869
833
(362)
(1,720)
(3,248)
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
210,000
2,258,624
2,034,996
1,741,233
1,375,104
934,311
416,486
(180,808)
(860,084)
(1,623,929)
$6,357,921
$6,133,846
$5,839,495
$5,472,634
$5,030,959
$4,512,099
$3,913,611
$3,232,976
$2,467,603
2,322,925
2,392,613
2,464,392
2,538,323
2,614,473
2,692,907
2,773,694
2,856,905
2,942,612
Ending Balance
$2,034,996
$1,741,233
$1,375,104
$934,311
$416,486
($180,808)
($860,084)
($1,623,929)
($2,475,009)
Cash Flow
1,161,463
1,196,307
1,232,196
1,269,162
1,307,237
1,346,454
1,386,847
1,428,453
1,471,306
Over/Under
873,533
544,926
142,908
(334,851)
(890,750)
(1,527,261)
(2,246,931)
(3,052,382)
(3,946,316)
Charges per Unit
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
$82.02
Notes:(1) Interest is 0.4% of one-half of the previous year ending balance
(2) 3 % increase in maintenance cost each year due to inflation.
ATTACHMENT NO.6
Appendix `O'
City of West Covina
SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY EVALUATION
2008-2009, Edited October 2016
The City's previous system capacity analysis was completed in 2009. Since there have been
no significant capital improvements since then, the hydraulic model was not updated in this
SSMP report. The primary purpose of this Appendix is to capture the methodology that was
used in developing the 2009 sewer capacity analysis. The primary update of this Appendix is
the cost of the recommended Capital Improvement Projects. The updated (2016 dollars)
estimate project costs are provided in Appendix `P'. These estimates reflect the cost to
replace select pipe segments at certain locations as determined by operating condition.
Appendix `P' includes a more detailed list of recommended CIP projects that considers both
calculated pipe operating condition as well as feasibility of updating adjacent pipe segments
of differing capacity thresholds as part of the same project rather than as separate projects.
The exhibits of the recommended project locations provided in Appendix `0-1' have not
been updated in this report as the hydraulic model has not changed.
Introduction and Summary
The City owns and operates its local wastewater collection system consisting of
approximately 227 miles of gravity flow sewer pipelines and two segments of force main
(varying in size from 4-inch to 18-inch pipe) and 5,187 manholes. The existing sewer system
discharges to trunk sewers that are owned and operated by the County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County and to the adjacent Cities of Baldwin Park and Covina, and some areas
of unincorporated county.
The purpose of this evaluation is to identify deficiencies in the existing sewer mainline
system, recommend alternatives to eliminate the deficiencies, prioritize the deficient reaches,
and provide the City with a basis on which to build a future infrastructure management
system.
The 227 miles of local sewer were modeled using HYDRA® 6.4 by PIZER. Of the total
length, approximately 19,096 feet of the existing system were identified as being critically
capacity deficient (Greater than 85% full). These are grouped as priority -one projects
requiring timely resolution. The deficient reaches of sewer mainlines are located within
SMZs 4, 62, 80, 82, 116, 117, 132 and 161. Please refer to exhibit maps A, B, & C in this
Appendix `0-1' for the deficient reach locations. The cost to repair the deficient reaches is
estimated to be $8,820,000. Those pipe segments classed as seriously capacity deficient,
approximately 30,048 feet of the existing system ( between 64% and 85% full), are grouped
as priority -two projects requiring resolution in the near future. The deficient reaches of
sewer mainlines are located within SMZs 2, 4, 5, 62, 74, 75, 80, 81, 82, 83, 105, 116, 117,
132, 139, 140, 151, 153 and 161. Please refer to exhibit maps A, B, & C in this Appendix
`0-1' for the deficient reach locations. The cost to repair the deficient reaches is estimated to
be $11,840,000.
Appendix `O'
The modeling function was performed utilizing generally accepted sewage generation
coefficients in the Los Angeles county region, and land use zoning as shown on a CAD file
map identified as: "annZoning CAD Map 04-06" received on December 29, 2008. The
zoning map was utilized as representative of the City's current development condition. This
map was overlaid on the sewer system map, developed as part of this project, thereby
allowing the modeler to apply the sewage generation coefficients for the respective land
zoning within each SMZ throughout the City. This method resulted in defining the
cumulative sewage generated and carried through the piping within each SMZ and delivered
to the receiving system. However, there was no flow monitoring performed to otherwise
validate the modeling data result. In months and years ahead, as maintenance inspections are
performed, the modeled areas nearing capacity should be closely monitored for signs of
exceeding capacity in order to avoid SSOs, and to refine design parameters for replacement.
As future land use changes occur in the General Plan, the model should be updated to reflect
consequences of such changes. The model should also be updated to reflect flow monitoring
results as well as the construction of new relief facilities, upgrades, and/or the construction of
new sewer lines in order to be fully representative of the community sewer system.
Study Approach
The following tasks were performed in the preparation of this Sewer System Capacity
Evaluation Report.
1. The City provided copies of existing sewer system as -built construction plans for use
in preparing the initial GIS sewer system mapping and attributes base and for the
exhibit maps A, B & C of this Appendix `0-1'.
2. The City provided an electronic CAD file of its land use zoning map for use in
creating an overlay map of the parcels and sewer maintenance zones in the city
system.
3. Willdan developed a computer model (Pfizer Hydra) of the City wastewater collection
system utilizing the above data.
4. Analysis of the existing wastewater collection system capacity and determination of
any capacity deficiencies (refer to the deficiency criteria section of this report and see
the exhibit maps in this Appendix `0-1').
5. Development of recommendations for system improvements to correct deficiencies.
6. Preparation of cost estimates for the recommended improvements.
7. Preparation of evaluation findings and recommendations to correct identified
deficiencies in a Sewer System Capacity Evaluation Report (this Appendix).
System Criteria and Alternatives
In designing or evaluating a wastewater collection system, the engineer must establish certain
criteria upon which to base the design. These include such things as available pipe sizes,
Appendix `O'
materials, slope, bury or cover, connections, etc. Such criteria are established to ensure that
the wastewater collection system can operate effectively under all flow conditions. Each
pipe segment must be capable of carrying the peak flows without surcharging the system.
Surcharging the system occurs when the pipe is flowing under pressure. However, many of
the initial design assumptions are unnecessary in the analysis of a collection system when the
pipe already exists and its diameter and slope are fixed.
In the analysis of an existing sewer system, the Hydra program compares the capacity of each
pipe in the system with the peak wastewater flow projected for that particular link or reach of
pipe. If the existing pipe size is surcharged, the Hydra program automatically increases the
pipe diameter to the next largest standard pipe size that will carry the design flow without
being surcharged. At a minimum, all pipes should be 8 inches or larger in diameter and the
velocity of flow in the pipe should be greater than 2 feet per second (ft/s). This velocity will
prevent deposition of solids in the sewer and help to re -suspend any materials that may have
already settled in the pipe. The minimum corresponding slopes to maintain 2 ft/s for various
pipe sizes are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Minimum Pipe Slopes ft/ft
Sewer Size
Slope
8"
0.0028
10"
0.0021
12"
0.0016
15"
0.0012
18"
0.0010
It is important to note that the slopes listed above assume the depth of flow in the pipe is 0.64
percent full. If there is insufficient flow to create this condition, greater slopes than those
shown may be required in order to maintain the minimum self cleaning velocity condition.
The design and analysis of gravity sewer pipes is typically based upon the depth to diameter
ratio (d/D). Common design criteria for proposed new sewer design is 0.50 (50% full) for 8
to 15-inch diameter pipes and 0.75 (75% full) for 18-inch and larger pipes. The area above
the water surface (residual capacity) helps to keep the sewage aerated, reducing the
possibility of septic conditions and odors. Existing wastewater systems are typically allowed
to flow with less residual capacity because development and redevelopment has occurred or
is foreseeable in the near future.
This report establishes the hydraulic design criteria for existing sewer pipes by classifying
"over capacity" pipes as any with a d/D greater than 0.64. This d/D ratio was arrived at by
taking 75 percent of the depth to diameter ratio of a pipe having maximum stable flow
capacity, which is at a d/D of 0.85 (75% of 85% is 64%). The area above a d/D of 0.85 is
considered hydraulically unstable. This reduction results in approximately 35 percent of the
pipe's full flow capacity being reserved for variations in discharges, periodic peaking of
Appendix `O'
flow, seasonal variations and minor or temporary obstructions. Again, this residual capacity
helps to keep the sewage aerated, reducing the possibility of septic conditions and odors.
The residual capacity allows for the possibility that actual wastewater flows may be slightly
higher than anticipated, especially during the hours when instantaneous or intermittent peaks
may occur. These peaks are generally observed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m.
Monday thru Friday and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Saturday and
Sunday. Peak flows may also be observed during rainfall events due to inflow and
infiltration conditions.
Exhibit maps A, B, & C in Appendix `0-1' shows the pipes that are capacity deficient per the
0.64 criteria and also shows the pipes that are deficient per the 0.50 criteria. Only the pipes
that exceed the 0.64 criteria are recommended for correction projects.
The design capacity of a gravity pipeline is the calculated capacity of the pipeline based on
the Manning formula:
Q=1.486 R211 Sv2 /n where, Q = flow in cubic feet per second
R = hydraulic radius in feet = A/ P
A = cross -sectional area of the pipe in square feet
P = wetted perimeter in feet
S = slope of the pipe in feet of rise per foot of length
n = Manning's friction factor
Sewer system capacity is established using a Manning's fiction factor of 0.013 for vitrified
clay pipe.
Alternatives
The following alternatives were considered in developing the recommended schedule of
deficiency correction projects.
1. Construction of a parallel sewer facility to carry the excess sewage flow is an obvious
solution to most of the deficiencies; however, this solution is not necessarily the most
economical or practical approach. In some instances rerouting of tributary areas or
the construction of a single relief sewer line can be planned in such a way that it will
relieve several main sewer lines thereby avoiding the construction of parallel or
replacement facilities and the related cost.
2. In other instances, replacement of the existing sewer with a larger size may be the
preferred alternative. The replacement or upsizing of the line may include open
trench installation or pipe bursting (if surrounding condition are conducive), and the
use of temporary bypass pumping. The decision as to which correction alternative to
construct is typically made just prior to the design phase after careful consideration of
all design constraints such as existing utilities and the costs associated with potential
Appendix `O'
utility relocation to provide additional space for the construction of a replacement
sewer line.
The engineer's opinion of budget figures (See Appendix `P') was prepared based on the cost
to remove and replace the existing sewer with a larger size, as this is the most conservative
cost approach.
It is suggested the where the depth of flow exceeds the design criteria of 0.64 d/D, but does
not exceed the maximum stable flow capacity of 0.85 d/D, that consideration be given to
allowing these sewers to flow in a slightly overloaded condition in lieu of building a more
costly relief facility. This overloading occurs only during peak flow conditions that are short
in duration. However, the City should frequently monitor these sewers in order to under take
a future corrective action as the overloading problem becomes worse.
Analysis of Existing Sewer System
The City's sewer system was modeled using Pizer Hydra Ver. 6.4. The Hydra program is
designed to provide analysis of both the existing sewer system and the design of any new
sewer lines.
After defining (laying out) the existing sewer system, the network was divided into 179
SMZ's or sewer drainage areas, based upon city sewer records, for input into the computer
model. The input data consisted of a numerical designation for each manhole and length of
sewer pipe between manholes, the slope of the line, and flow line elevation of each manhole.
Computation of Wastewater Inflows
Once the schematic of the sewer system network was established, data was compiled on each
SMZ, General Plan land uses (zoning), and related factors that affect the volume of
wastewater generated. Next, it was necessary to compute the area of each type of land use;
e.g., low -density residential, medium -density residential, high -density residential,
commercial, industrial, schools, etc., within each drainage boundary. The unit flow
coefficients (see Table 2) were then applied to the computed areas of land use within each
SMZ. The unit flow coefficients, when applied to the land use areas, provide peak flow rates
for each particular land use category. The wastewater inflows calculated for the various land
use categories within the SMZ were then accumulated to provide the calculated peak flow for
the entire drainage area. The accumulation of estimated wastewater flow is accomplished
totally within the computer program.
Table 2
Unit Flow Coefficients for Peak Flow Rates
Zone
Cu. Ft. per
sec. per acre
Gallons per
day per acre
R-1
0.004
2585
R2
0.008
5171
R3
0.012
7756
R-P'
0.015
9695
Commercial
Manufacturing
0.021
13573
Institutional
0.015
9VMMd
Flow Monitoring
Appendix `O'
There was no flow monitoring performed under the contract services for preparation of this
SSMP. However, flow confirmation work can be undertaken at any time in the future.
Typically, as maintenance inspection findings indicate changed pipeline capacity conditions
for those pipe segments near capacity as indicated in the modeling evaluation results. Flow
monitoring results can be used to verify and/or calibrate the sewer flow modeling work for a
SMZ as affected by changes in development or observed manhole inspections of flow
conditions. Also, additional future flow monitoring is recommended at near capacity
locations, during periods of rain, to verify or deny potential inflow and infiltration problems,
and to refine design parameters, especially for the higher density residential zones.
For each site monitored, the flow data should be reviewed and compared to the contributing
SMZ area. The peak monitored flow rate must be compared to the design flow rate and the
shape of the outflow curve compared to the SMZ modeled result. An expected difference
between the monitored flow and the design flow is between 150 to 250 percent. This
difference is expected because the design flow rate includes the maximum flow rate expected
from each development type which contains both wet weather inflow/infiltration and design
peaking safety factors.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
Within the initial introduction and summary section, both the critically deficient (> 85% full)
and seriously deficient (between 64% and 85% full) pipe segments were described and
referenced. Before undertaking design and construction or identifying further project
priorities, the performance of select flow monitoring is recommended at crucial locations,
especially during periods of rain to verify or deny any potential inflow and infiltration
problems. Also to confirm the actual in -system flow conditions which can and do vary do to
water usage and customer practices in waste disposal. The findings identified in this
evaluation and report are for planning guidance in addressing the sewer system capacity
conditions. Further pre -design refinement and analysis will be necessary before initiation of
a final design of improvements for the facilities is under taken.
In the event of any land use changes to the General Plan, upon which this study was based,
the model should be updated to reflect the consequences of such changes. The model should
also be updated to reflect the construction of new sewer lines.
Appendix `O'
Recommended Deficiency Correction Projects
Presented in the engineer's opinion of cost (Appendix `P') is a remove and replace approach
to correct the identified deficient pipe segments. This is usually a conservative approach to
costing and should be refined by thorough engineering evaluation and assessment of the
specific conditions and replacement options before proceeding with a specific correction
project.
The following criteria for defining and prioritizing relief facility need was used:
Priority 1
Sewers with critical deficiencies of d/D > 0.85, are recommended for correction first.
Sewers meeting these criteria are ranked highest.
Priority 2
Sewers with critical deficiencies of 0.64 < d/D < 0.85 are recommended for correction
second. Sewers meeting these criteria are ranked lower.
Priority 3
Sewers with a d/D < 0.64 are not capacity deficient; therefore, are not ranked here.
Sewer System Improvements Costs
The unit prices shown in the engineer's opinion of cost (see Appendix `P') represent the
anticipated construction cost only as applicable for mid 2016. Bid prices received on jobs of
similar nature in Southern California area were one source of information used to derive the
cost figure. In addition, manufacturers, suppliers of material and equipment, and local
contractors were consulted on various cost items. An additional 35% of construction cost is
added to cover the cost of contingencies, design engineering, contract administration and
construction observation.
The engineer's opinion of cost does not include an adjustment for inflation. Construction
costs can be expected to fluctuate as corresponding changes occur in the national or local
economy. One available indicator of these changes is the Engineering News -Record
Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles metropolitan area. This index is compiled from
actual construction cost data for materials and labor and is reported in Engineering News -
Record magazine. It is suggested that this index be used to update the unit prices presented
in Appendix `P' and in adjusting the estimate from the date of the initial estimates.
Appendix `O'
Financing of Improvements
General
Funding considerations are often the deciding factor in scoping and implementation of a
project. There are, of course, numerous methods or mix of methods, which could be used to
finance the implementation of a sewer system capital improvement plan (CIP), and the
ongoing operations and maintenance activities. Among these methods are:
1. Pay -as -You -Go Financing (rates, fees and charges based)
2. State Assistance Programs
3. Municipal Securities
4. Improvement Districts
5. Federal Assistance Programs
In the discussion that follows, the above funding options are briefly described and their
adaptability to specific circumstances of a sewer system CIP are noted. In evaluating
specific funding programs, services of financial and legal experts in such issues are
recommended.
Methods of Financine
1. Pay -as -You -Go Financing:
Development of cash reserves or capital improvement funds, from an agency's revenue
base, is often referred to as "pay-as-you-go" funding. This method avoids interest
payments on other types of debt financing. Under this form of financing, the initial
capital cost of a project must be accumulated in advance of construction, which can cause
a delay in project implementation. If delay is not a crucial factor, this is a cost effective
method due to the absence of debt financing costs. This method has sometimes been
used together with various forms of short-term financing to construct needed sewer
infrastructure.
2. State Assistance Programs:
Under the rules and regulations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water
Act or CWA) and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the State has enacted
the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water Revolving
Fund (DWSRF), respectively. These programs are funded by Federal grants, State funds
and Revenue bonds. The CWSRF Loan Program provides low -interest loan funding for
construction of publicly -owned wastewater treatment facilities, sewers, sewer
interceptors, water recycling facilities, as well as implementation of non -point source
(NPS) projects or programs. There are different types of funding assistance available
under these programs.
Appendix `O'
www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/grants loans/srf/
The Department of Water Resources administers the State bond law programs for Water
supply/Water quality, Water conservation, Flood management and Regional water
management. www.grantsloans.water.ca.gov
The State Water Resources Control Board administers the State revolving fund loans,
Water recycling grants & loans, Small community grants, Agricultural drainage loans,
Agricultural drainage management loans, Clean beaches initiative grants, Agricultural
water quality grants, Areas of special biological significance (ASBS) grants, Storm water
grants, and Santa Monica bay restoration commission grants.
www.waterboards.ca.gov
The State Department of Public Health administers the DWSRF, Proposition 84 funding
for public water systems, and Proposition 50 for the water security, clean drinking water,
coastal and beach protection act of 2002 loans. www.cdph.ca.gov
Various types of infrastructure improvement/construction loans can be arranged through
the California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (IBank)
www.ibank,ca,¢ov
Limited amounts of public works grant funds have been available to agencies from the
State Office of Economic Development. Use of such grant funds must result in the
creation of new, permanent jobs in the private sector. In order to ensure that the funds
are ultimately assisting those in most need, projects eligible for consideration must be
those in areas designated eligible for HUD Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG),
EDA Sudden or Long-term Economic Deterioration, or EDA Designated Special Impact
Area.
3. Municipal Securities:
Historically, general obligation bonds (GOB's) had been a prevalent method of financing
various public works improvements. They are secured by an agency's total assets and
payable from ad valorem taxes levied on all taxable properties within the agency's
boundary. However, the Jarvis -Gann Amendment (Proposition 13 of 1978) prohibits the
levying of ad valorem property taxes beyond pre-existing authorizations and levels (pre -
July 1, 1978). Therefore, authorization and issuance of GOB's is not considered feasible
under current law.
An option to GOB's is the issuance of a specific type note or bond form, such as a
revenue anticipation note (RAN) or a tax anticipation note (TAN) or a certificate of
participation (COP) or various combinations of available authorities that can be used to
fund public infrastructure needs. These types of municipal securities (Mums) are
generally tax-exempt and commonly used to fund public works infrastructure and
facilities. Many states also exempt their securities from their own taxes, which makes
those securities particularly attractive investments for their own residents.
Appendix `O'
TAN's and RAN's are instruments backed by anticipated taxes or revenues respectively.
When these types of notes are considered for funding of needed infrastructure, a specified
source of tax or revenue stream is identified and pledged for repayment of the debt. For
example, with sewer facilities, all or a portion of the sewer service revenue fees/charges
could be used as backing for the debt instrument selected. Then other local revenue
sources could be considered for ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M) or some
acceptable mix and match of funds specified to secure the debt and accomplish the O&M.
COP's are another form of municipal funding instrument available. These generally
require the facility improvement being funded to be named as security for the investment
with a lease back of the facility by the municipality. In turn, the municipality pledges
some revenue stream(s) that would be used to repay the investor held notes.
When Munis are being considered for funding of improvements, consultation with an
experienced and qualified financing consultant and bond counsel are a must.
4. Improvement Districts:
In general, special assessment district procedures have been established by statute to
provide for financing of construction and/or acquisition of public works improvements,
such as sewer systems, and for assessing the cost of such improvements to the benefiting
properties. Under all assessment proceedings, the cost of the work is assessed against
properties within the benefited area. The assessments are levied in specific amounts
against each individual property on the basis of the benefit each parcel receives. The
property owner may pay the assessment in cash during the cash collection period of 30
days. But, if any assessments are not paid in cash during that period, bonds are usually
issued to represent the unpaid assessments and the benefited properties are assessed on
their annual property tax bill over a usual period of 10 to 20 years.
The City of West Covina utilizes Government Code Section 38902 to establish sewer
service charges. While an assessment district proceeding may be a reasonable and
equitable means for financing sewer system improvements, further evaluation and
stakeholder involvement is a usual practice to determine the viability and practicality of
utilizing such financing method.
5. Federal Assistance Programs:
There are, and have been, a series of federal grant and loan programs which may be
applicable to public infrastructure projects. However, the qualification criteria for such
programs vary from time to time and their funding or continuation is subject to
congressional appropriations. Therefore, such programs should not be considered as a
likely source of funds unless a funding commitment letter has been received.
Historically, federal programs administered by the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) provide financial and technical assistance to aid the economic
development of areas with high unemployment or low family income levels.
Communities must make long-range plans for economic growth in order to be eligible for
EDA financial assistance, in the form of grants and loans for public works and
Appendix `O'
development that generates jobs and economic opportunity. Typical public works
projects include construction of roads, water and sewer lines, and public facilities. To
determine the status requires timely monitoring.
Under the rules and regulations of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program can fund housing and
community development needs. This includes part or all of improvements necessary to
upgrade existing sewer facilities. Those qualifying geographic areas within the City that
have the greatest overall deficiency in physical infrastructure receive the highest priority
according to CDBG criteria. When the sewer system has a defined deficiency, then it is
appropriate to use CDBG funds to meet health and safety standards as well as to
encourage up -grading of abutting housing and physical environment.
The primary statutory objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable communities
by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding
economic opportunities, principally for persons of low- and moderate -income.
Communities receiving CDBG funds through the State may use the funds for many kinds
of community development activities including, but not limited to:
• acquisition of property for public purposes;
• construction or reconstruction of streets, water and sewer facilities, neighborhood
centers, recreation facilities, and other public works;
• demolition;
• rehabilitation of public and private buildings;
• public services;
• planning activities;
• assistance to nonprofit entities for community development activities; and
• assistance to private, for profit entities to carry out economic development activities
(including assistance to micro -enterprises).
www.hcd.ca.gov/ca/cdbg/about/html
The United State Department of Agriculture Rural Development Program provides
communities with population less than 50,000 a variety of direct -guaranteed -loans and /or
grants. These include water and wastewater system improvement funding.
www.rurdev.usa. og v/ca
Appendix `O'
APPENDIX `O-1'
Sewer System Capacity Analysis
Deficient Pipes Exhibits
galeNN
i
9dr�
n
/\ X \T7 / / X
E Garvey Ave
SEE EXHIBIT C
lt4 LI�J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
LEGEND:
EJ
EXISTING CSD TRUNK SEWERS
SANITARY SEWER PIPE
0.85 < d/D
0.64 < d/D < 0.85
0.50 < d/D < 0.64
CITY BOUNDARY
SEWER DRAINAGE AREA BORDER
SEWER MAINTENANCE ZONE
PLAN
SCALE: 1 "=600'
600 300 0 600 1200
SCALE FEET
APPENDIX O:
SEWER SYSTEM
CAPACI TY ANAL YSI S
DEFICIENT PIPES
EXHIBIT A
"N _= A
E -��gineering
2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 450
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714)978-8200 fax (714)978-8299
'■■11111111
R- 01:1■IIII
z
39 40
L
1111119011�1ii11111 �1■
149
45
�������� �������� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII■
0
W Ro land St
■
52
J
73
\ —T T
SEE EXHIBIT C
1111111■ iiiiii'��ii■'.
■11111111IJOE i'iMi
E Eastland Ctr Dr
49
E
s�
O
r
Rol
i or onno ■0i , . I
,�7C�
rr
v i�r I I
EEI
t i emple Way
E H^"eve
St
N
61
Covina
h'i�js Ra
Lr
a�
LEGEND:
EXISTING CSD TRUNK SEWERS
® SANITARY SEWER PIPE
0.85 < d/D
0.64 < d/D < 0.85
0.50 < d/D < 0.64
CITY BOUNDARY
SEWER DRAINAGE AREA BORDER
1os SEWER MAINTENANCE ZONE
PLAN
SCALE: 1 "=600'
600 300 0 600 1200
SCALE FEET
APPENDIX O:
SEWER SYSTEM
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
DEFICIENT PIPES
EXHIBIT B
WILLD N
Engineering
2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 450
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714)978-8200 fax (714)978-8299
SEE EXHIBIT A SEE EXHIBIT B
LEGEND:
EXISTING CSD TRUNK SEWERS
SANITARY SEWER PIPE
0.85 < d/D
0.64 < d/D < 0.85
0.50 < d/D < 0.64
CITY BOUNDARY
SEWER DRAINAGE AREA BORDER
1os SEWER MAINTENANCE ZONE
PLAN
SCALE: 1 "=600'
600 300 0 600 1200
SCALE FEET
APPENDIX O:
SEWER SYSTEM
CAPACI TY ANAL YSI S
DEFICIENT PIPES
EXHIBIT C
110, - = _
-i - E
r ngineering
2401 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 450
Anaheim, CA 92806
(714)978-8200 fax (714)978-8299