Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1991 0306 CC REG ITEM 08DPAUL W. LAWRASON JR. Mayor BERNARDO M. PEREZ Mayor Pro Tern SCOTT MONTGOMERY Councilmember JOHN E. WOZNIAK Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk kop 1490 .� DATE: MOORPARK :Tenn al, ' :OORPARK, CALIFORNIA City Council Meefing of 1991 BY M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYLJ.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development JOHN F. KNIPE City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Kenneth C. Gilbert, Director of Public Works February 28, 1991 (Council Meeting 3 -6 -91) SUBJECT: Water Shortage Task Force OVERVIEW This is an update of recent efforts of a County -wide Task Force on the water shortage problem. DISCUSSION A. Initial Meeting At the urging of Supervisor Flynn, County, City, Special District and other officials have been meeting weekly at the County Government Center to discuss the feasibility of developing a cooperative, collaborative County -wide approach to dealing with the water crisis. The stated view is that we are all in this together, and that we should seek a certain degree of uniformity and consistency in developing solutions. At the first meeting of this group, Supervisor Flynn offered a list of possible actions to be taken in this regard. The list covers a broad range of possible considerations. The first order of business was to evaluate the feasibility of these suggestions, offer possible new ideas and then develop implementation strategies. Those in attendance were asked to meet in smaller groups "mirroring" the categories set forth in Exhibit 1. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Water Shortage Task Force March 6, 1991 Page 2 B. Meeting of City Officials One of the sub - committees is the Executive Committee of the Association of Ventura County Cities. On February 14, a special meeting of this group was convened to discuss this list. Other groups, as defined above, also met during this time frame. After much discussion a recommendation was drafted and forwarded to Supervisor Flynn. A copy of that recommendation is attached as Exhibit 2. C. Information Sharina One of the tasks agreed to by the group, was the sharing of information and /or efforts being undertaken by each Agency in this area. To this end, a copy of the City's Ordinance on "Low -flow fixtures was provided to the Task Force. D. Weekly Meetings Until further notice the Task Force will be meeting weekly to coordinate the broad range of efforts being undertaken to deal with the water crisis. At the same time, meetings of each of the sub - committees will be held, as needed, to provide input to this process. E. Conservation There was a general consensus that water conservation efforts would be the best short term action plan for dealing with the water shortage. A variety of Public Information and out reach efforts were and are being discussed and developed. In a related matter, staff has been working on (and continues to develop) a number of water management techniques for the City's "greenscapes ". These efforts include 1) the development of historic water usage statistics, 2) the use of computerized water use ledgers, 3) analysis of water needs VS. actual usage, 4) improved irrigation controller monitoring; and more. Staff and the City's maintenance contractor have initiated a water use monitoring program which we expect will result in a substantial reduction in future water use as compared to prior years. Water Shortage Task Force March 6, 1991 Page 3 F. Broad Range of Actions The agenda facing the group is very broad. The topics of discussion touched upon everything from shower heads'to de- salination plants. In the next few weeks it is anticipated that the efforts of the group will be focused to bear on a selected group of priorities. G. Water District As you know, the water purveyor for the City of Moorpark is Ventura County Waterworks District Number 1. The District, as other purveyors, will be a key player in the development and implementation of the programs and projects undertaken in months ahead. H. Water Rate Increase One of the tasks at hand for the District, is the cutback of water being supplied by the State Water Project. The District is proposing a change in the present "TIERED" water rate structure to both lower the threshold for Tier II, and raise the amount of the penalty assessment for Tiers II & III. A memo briefly describing this proposed action is attached as Exhibit 3. I. Data Gathering The latest effort of the Task Force which involves the Sub - Committee on General Purpose Governments (and therefore the City of Moorpark), is a questionnaire designed to gather certain relevant information. Our response is being prepared. J. Updates It is the intent of staff to provide the City Council with periodic updates of the efforts and accomplishments of the Task Force. RECOMMENDATION Receive and File. POSSIBLE LOCAL ACTIONS TO CONSERVE WATER (Some May Require State Legislation) GMA /UNITED WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT /VCFCD • Consider limits on, or prohibition of, new water wells • Consider requiring meters on all wells and all water users • Consider limits on groundwater pumping • Consider mandatory water conservation /water waste ordinances • Consider making well drilling discretionary, and hence subject to CEQA • Consider subsidizing more efficient irrigation equipment for agricultural irrigation. GENERAL PURPOSE GOVERNMENTS • Consider limiting new discretionary and /or ministerial development • Consider requiring new development to fully, or more than fully, offset added water requirements (i.e., subsidize retrofit) • Consider requiring specified new and /or existing uses (like golf courses, cemetaries, etc.) to utilize only reclaimed or other non - potable water • Consider requiring ultra -low -flow plumbing retrofits at time of sale or improvement • Consider mandating non - potable water for large landscaped areas • Consider subsidizing ultra -low -flow plumbing retrofit program • Consider amending landscape requirements to mandatory water conserving landscapes WATER PURVEYORS • Consider mandatory water conservation /water waste ordinances /rules • Consider mandatory limits on water use (as now exists in Ventura) • Consider tiered water rate system • Consider halting further water hook -ups during drought rY�-'V A I ( I a t t) -2- • Consider subsidizing more efficient irrigation equipment for agricultural irrigation. • Consider providing water audits for users, especially large users • Consider subsidizing ultra -low -flow plumbing retrofit program • Consider blending with non - potable sources to stretch potable supplies (albeit lowering quality) WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM • Consider expanding irrigation mobile lab program • Consider reconvening plumbing efficiency committee to develop prototype ultra -low -flow plumbing retrofit program • Consider expanding staff for increased public information/ education • Consider providing water audits of larger users (golf course, business parks) WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENTS • Reclaimed water projects • Treatment of non - potable sources to potable standards • State project water , -. UIQt,Vylvl IU4I , 4-1� —Oi , 0•0 4H77 , bU552624dy-4 ASSOCIATION OF VENTURA COUNTY CITIES 2929 Tapo Canyon Road Simi Valley, CA 93063 February 15, 1991 The Honorable John F1ynn,.Chair Ventura County Drought Emergency Task Force 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Dear John: 805 529 8270;# 2 At the request of your Task Force, the Association of Ventura-County Cities held a special meeting on February 14 to discuss City coordination of water conservation measures. After significant discussion. the following policy determinations were agreed to: I. Each individual City will strive-to !neat necessary water conservation goals recognizing the unique situation of each community; although these will be individually adopted, they will be selected from a universal list of available measures as provided by your Task Force or otherwise developed by each City. Each City will advise County staff of their adopted measures in order that coordination and a countywide clearinghouse may be established. 2. The AVCC urges your Task Force to pursue legislative initiatives to revive the State mater Project expansion to provide greater quantities and less costly water .to Southern California. 3. The AVCC strongly urges your Task Force to investigate other sources of water including the potential for a desalination process for all or part of Ventura County. The AVCC greatly appreciates the opportunity to provide input to your Task Force. We have encouraged each of our cities to have a Council Member participate at your meetings and look forward to supporting you in your efforts to assist Ventura County through this current crisis. Please let me know if there is anything further the AVCC can do to help. incerely, Greg St att n Chair cc: Ventura County Mayors Ventura County City Managers � kv,�;-- � 2- M E M O R A N D U M TO: Steven Kueny, City Manager FROM: Ken Gilbert, Director of Public Works DATE: February 11, 1991 SUBJECT: Waterworks District No. 1 Advisory Committee Meeting 2 -11 -91 1. Late last week the State Water Resources Control Board announced its intent to implement STAGE V water conservation measures. For this reason the water rate increase described in the attached memo of January 30 are changed. The revised recommended change now calls for a fifteen per cent reduction in use in order to enjoy the Tier I rates. 2. Proposed Rate Change for Residential Customers: Max Current Rate Proposed Rate Usage Per Cent Cost Per Cent Cost Per Day Over T -I Per CCF Over T -I Per CCF* Tier I 399 ga - -- $0.764 - -- $0.764 Tier II 525 ga 10% $0.841 66.5% $1.243 Tier III -- 20% $0.842 125% $1.721 N-gtgA: 1 Billing Unit = 1 CCF = 100 ft3 = 748 ga 4. Changes re: Agricultural Rates: . No new Ag Rate Customers . Define and Cite for water waste . Reduce usage 30% . Use above 70% mark = 175% increase ($227.39/AF to $621.39/AF) 5. allp ary a. This proposal still ONLY passes on the expected penalties the District will pay based upon the anticipated amount of water to be purchased and are still far less than what other agencies are imposing. b. The change is to increase the amount of reduction (to avoid penalties) from 10% to 15 %. Such a reduction would result in a change in water use from 474 ga /day to 399 ga /day (at this Tier I usage level there are no penalties). c. I still question if these relatively minor penalties (66% of normal rate applied to the overage) will have any real affect on the behavior of a water waster.