HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence PAGE 1
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION BOND LAW OF 1978
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Date
March t5 , 1980
Applicant's Name
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Applicant's' Address -
P.O. ,Box -309; Truckee, California
Applicant Contact Name '> Telephone No.
Milt' Seymour 587-3896
Project Title
Source Control and Delivery Upgrading
-hyl
I -
I
PAGE 1
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION BOND LAW OF 1978
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Date
March 25, 1980
Applicant's Name
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Applicant's- Address
P.O. Box -3092 Truckee, California
Applicant Contact Name Telephone No.
Milt' Seymour 587-3896
Project Title
Source Control and Delivery Upgrading
GENERAL.- The merits of each proposed project will be determined from the
information provided by applicants in their preliminary: application, sup-
porting documents and hearing testimony. Projects selected for.funding under
this program by the State Board will be those which, in the Board's Judgement,
will provide the greatest benefit to California consistent with the provisions
of the Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978.
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE .
1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION. Describe the problem or- problems to be solved. by the-
construction of this project. (Continue on additional pages if needed. )
A. Tonini -Spring currently produces more consumptive water than
the existing pump can deliver. The storage tank overflows
causing drainage problems and wasted consumptive water.
B. Water is lost at McGlashen Spring when the flow meter gets
clogged and spring water backs up and is wasted overland.
C. The Southside Area of Truckee is critically deficient in
consumptive water. Without immediate delivery system
improvements, the public safety will be in jeopardy due to
consumption of all fireflow storage in the Southside storage
tanks . The Southside Spring pump cannot keep up with the
Spring production. The Spring Building is in a dilapidated
condition. The two 15 HP Booster Pumps cannot lift the
required water to meet the existing peak demands , and ,the
fire protection during the summer is almost negligible.
March 1980
PAGE 2
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION INCLUDING SERVICE AREA. Describe the project that
will solve the problem or problems addressed in item number 1 on the
previous page. If alternative solutions have been considered, briefly
describe them and provide an economic analysis comparing the alternatives.
The economic analysis should contain all capital and operation and main—
tenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be expressed
In current dollars, excluding inflation. Compute the present value of
these costs using a discount rate of 7.125 percent. Applicants for water
conservation and wastewater reclamation projects will provide the economic
analysis in Part IV. (Continue on additional pages if needed.)
A. To correct the overflow problem at Tonini Spring, a controlled
overflow facility will be provided. An additional pump will be
added to deliver the increased flow required to keep -the tank
level down, and to act as a standby pump for reliability.
Estimated Cost of Project = $34,200
B. Prevention of clogging can be done by installing a strainer
upstream of the Soma Sierra Storage Tank flow meter. This
will prevent clogging of the flow meter, provide easier
maintenance, and eliminate loss of consumptive water.
Estimated Cost of Project = $ 12500
C. To improve the delivery system and facilities at Southside,
a larger capacity Spring pump will be installed to match the
Spring production. The Building covering the Spr:Lngi will be
replaced. A new building will house the Spring pump, three
larger booster pumps with increased capacity and reliability,
and related flow metering equipment, controls and piping.
Estimated Cost of Project = $139,000
March 1980
PAGE 3
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
3. PROJECT BENEFITS. Describe the primary and secondary benefits to be
realized from construction of the project. Quantify if possible. Appli-
cants for water conservation and wastewater reclamation projects specify
how much water will be saved or reclaimed. (Continue on additional pages
if needed.)
A. The primary benefits at Tonini Springs will be increased
capacity and .water conservation. The 40 GPM loss will be
totally reclaimed and used for consumption.
Secondary benefits include the stoppage of drainage problems
and objectional runoff through adjacent properties .
B. The primary benefit at McGlashen Spring is the recovery of
100% spring production (50 GPM) with the strainer installed."
The secondary benefit is reduced line maintenance.
C. The primary benefits include production capacities on par
with peak demands to prevent consumption of fire flow storage,
the safety and health of the community will be insured by the
improved and upsized pumping and delivery systems and con-
servation of water produced at the Spring.
The secondary benefits will be increased aesthetic appearance
of the Spring Complex with the removal of the old Spring Building.
i4arch 1980
PAGE 4 '
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
4. ENVIRON.`4ENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Briefly describe the environmental conse-
quences if the project is constructed or include a copy of the Environ-
mental Impact Report, or Negative Declaration or Notice of Exemption.
(Continue on additional pages if needed.)
r Pl:e"e see -Project E.I.A. attached.
March 1980
PAGE 5
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION
1. PROPOSED CAPITAL COSTS BUDGET (1) (PROGRAM ELIGIBLE COSTS)
COST CLASSIFICATION Applicant's Other Grant Total Cost Per
Share Shares Share Classification
A. FACILITIES PLANNING (2)
$ -o- $ -
$26 200 $ 26 zoo
B. FACILITIES DESIGN (2) -0- - 26,210 26,210
C. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION (3) 20,385 - 101,905 122,290
D.. OTHER (Explain) - - - -
E. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 20,385 154,315 174,700
2. PROPOSED FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS BUDGET (4) (NON PROGRAM COSTS)
A. DEBT SERVICE 16.,003
B. FIXED COSTS 593,187
C. VARIABLE COSTS 109,500
17. o f
D. OTHER COSTS (Ex lain)ca ltal cos 1,750
E. TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS 1666,440
)TNOTES_
(1) Indicate the date assumed for proposed capital costs.
(2) Program eligible costs for Facilities Planning and Design include direct project
related administrative expenses, consultant architectural and engineering fees,
applicant's architectural and engineering fees, equipment and contingencies.
(3) Program eligible costs for Facilities Construction include those in (2) above plus
the costs for rights-of-way, land, relocation and structures.
(4) Indicate the date assumed for proposed first full year operation and-maintenance
costs.
March 1980
PAGE 6
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFOPUMATION (Continued)
3. SOURCES OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR CAPITAL COSTS
A. APPLICANT'S SHARE M
(1) Cash on Hand O
(2) Mort a es.
O
(3) Securities O
(4) Bonds
O -
(5) Tax Levies
O
(6) Non Cash (Explain)
(7) Other (E lain.Faci.lities Fees (41.5% of funds available) 20.385
' (8) TOTALApplicant's Share $ 20,385
B_ OTHER SHARES(1)
(1) State
$ O
(2) Federal
O
(3) Other (Explain) 0
(4) TOTAL — Other Shares
$ O
C. TOTAL — All Capital Costs Matching Funds (lines A(8) and B(4)) 20,385
4. SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS
A. TAX LEVIES 0
B_ FEES (Explain) Service Charges 1 750
C. OTHER (Explain) 0
D. TOTAL — All First Year Operation & Maintenance Costs (lines A thru C) $ 1,75 0
FOOTNOTE:
(1) Describe assurance of applicant's share or other shares of matching funds or in—kind
services.
March 1980
PAGE 7
PART III
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MASTER SCHEDULE
1. CURRENT PROJECT STATUS. (Check appropriate box)
Pre Planning Facilities Design
Plans & Specifications & Bidding
Facilities Planning Documents 98% Completed
2. ESTIMATED DATE CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN ON PROJECT.-
P10. YR.
6 1980
3. PROVIDE A MASTER SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING MAJOR ACTIVITIES IN
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES. The Master Schedule will form the
basis for the planning of the design and construction activities of the
project. It identifies the dates of major activities and .acts as a
communication device between the various parties.
4. DESCRIBE POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY STOP THE PROJECT..
5. DESCRIBE WHO WILL OWN AND OPERATE THE PROJECT.
Complete Strainer Pro
10-1-80
Bid Open Commence Complete S.S. Project
3. Advertisement Bids Work "� e S.S.1
5-I5-80 6-15-80 7-1-80 Complete Tonini�Pro. _
6-30-81
4. No potential roadblocks
5. Truckee-Donner Public Utility District owns and operates the
projects .
riarch 1980
PAGE 8
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS. Provide an analysis weighing the benefits of the
project against the economic, social and environmental impacts of the
project. If this analysts is contained in existing reports, submit one
�--- co of each re with thi s PY report preliminary application. The economic
portion of the analysis should contain all capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be
expressed in current dollars, excluding Inflation. Compute the present
value of these costs using a discount rate of 7.125 percent.
A comparison must be made with the economic cost of alternative water
sources. The economic cost of alternative water sources is not the price
of water, but rather the future capital (if comparing with new water
sources) and operation and maintenance costs to produce and .deliver the
water to the customer. For water conservation and wastewater reclamation
prpjects it is appropriate to compare costs on a unit cost of water saved
or, produced basis after computing the present values. (Continue on
additional pages if needed_) -
Economic Cost of Projects A, B & C
PW = 174,700 + 1750 (P, 7.125, 20)
A
= 174, 700 + 1750 (10.49187)
= $193,061 - .
The Economic Cost of Alternative'Water Sources would exceed
$193,061 by the cost of the new source.
-See following page for Economic Cost of Alternative Sources,
social and environmental impacts.
March 1980 -
Q
� 4J
� b
5 LW 'H
0 co 0
G 41 0 0 0 u N a) Q) r4 0 •W
•Hv10 0
r4 w x � �C3 luaJ
rororob ro � ,40 rl Id
S PA ++ 4) 0 04J
r-I 44 V (v 0 •rl 0
4) 0
u •91c4Jd3r4JIbD•4J
m 41 41 41 >�•rl 3 4I b G u a)
•H •rl 4J 5 r u 'd •rl cd G
>141Cd lG �� ro roN
ro ro ro b 0 m cd P JJ 0) ;j
N G G a) aJ a) a) 0 41 va
3o0Cd4 (0 u 4jN4J4J �jwva
t0r4bo .0 p 041cd H0 (D
G G 4Jcd CO 4) G a) r•l 3 0 ;-� o p
co u p ro 0 p 0 •rl 0 0 •rl In a
(aGOp4j •rl
•Ja " 10 4J •rl 44 EnH 4) P 4
�J CO0 m r� G P 44 r♦ •rl 4,0 a)
ra •rl p 0 cd 0 wA .0 0 +14
ro X a 01 a) •rl 41 b •rl co � p 60 �
4) a) p x JJ cd co g 0 bD•rl H
r-I 41 (n x 'U 1J •rl u ro ro In p 0 ti
10 41 G G rl 41 •rl P, �► aJ
•d a) ro •rl ro 41
a G N G •rt G •rl •rl a) ' u
u •rlva) u � a) Q�' � Nu cl
cl
(d 4Ju , o v•r4 5 .0 u
u 10 41 ro r-1 u
ca G 4J 4J 0 44 u ro a) Inr+ N0 0u 0 4-l4J4JN10P3 H
41 a 0 ro -)•rl 4) 0
' aJ G 41 N 41 41 4) 0 z X. r4 ,-I 4)
u ro a) 0 0 14 •rl 0 w G G JJ p ,S+ rl ro N
cd JJ G 4 cd x 0 0 0 •H a 4J El cd Ja ro
p w0m +J U •rlN0 .dN G Q 5 0 '� a 4) dJ ra 0 rl 0 u
H a 4J0 u (d u roa) 0) cdcn,a4j w
5 . •rl a) P, G 0) •rl u 4 a Jj 0
r-i •rlPGa) cdWP 0G 0a) �la) 0
0 4) G Ili 10 cd 0 ra (ard 414 au p
•rl JJ bD 1 •rl G (a r-I a J S I •rl a1
u wg mCY) mN 0 0) > G
a OroOro a) x u � O ,>aG 0 G 0
0 •t) u 4 ro P +J w a 3 +J •rl cn w z
PAGE 9
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS (Continued)
t
2. FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS.
A. In addition to the project budget information supplied in Part II,
estimate the following:
(1) Price .of alternative fresh water for the current year and in the
first and fifth years of project operation.
(2) Project expenses in the first and fifth years of operation,
including debt service and operation and maintenance costs.
Provide three sets of calculations assuming State grant levels of
50, 75 and 87.5 percent.
(3) Price and total revenue from the reclaimed water in the first
and fifth years of project operation.
Take into consideration the estimated reclaimed water deliveries in
the first and fifth years of project operation rather than assuming
that the project will be operating at design capacity.-
B. _ Describe market assurances, including user commitments for reclaimed
water.
C. Discuss- any other feasibility issues not covered elsewhere in this
preliminary application.
(Continue on additional pages if needed. )
3. FEASIBILITY OF WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS_ Discuss any other feasibility
issues not covered elsewhere in this preliminary application. (Continue
on additional pages if needed. )
See Next Page 9A
March 1980
r use >r
Feasibility of Water Conservation Projects
Southside Area
The peak day demand in average flow per connection is 1230 GPD per
connection. A March, 1980 connection count showed 635 connections
�- including a Golf Course.
Booster Production 388,800 GPD
Storage less 150,000 Gal. Fire Flow = 300,000 Gal
Peak Day Supply = 688,800 Gal
Peak Day Demand = 781,050 Gal
781,050-688,800
Conservation required per connection 635 = 145 GPD
145 GPD to prevent fireflow consumption
Conservation required per connection 781,050-388,800 = 618 GPD
635
618 GPD to reduce demand to the Booster Production
From the above figures over 50% will have to be conserved in order
for present supply to equal demand.
iI
f �
i
l � 1
Tl PUD.. SOUTP5/DE AREA
3-0,4r PEAK DEIMAO YERS05 STORAGE M UNIE
1000 500
900 'h
\' 4
600
400
\\ STORED WATER
700
Q
600 tl 300
0,0
500
400 200 Q
300 i _ �F/R�FLORAGE /50,0006.
L300i7fR CAPAl3/L I TV /2�D GPMJ
1
200 1
100 .
1
100
HIV w
0 oD
0
(D
Allo 6A,M, NOON 6 P.M. MID 6A.M. NOON G P.M. MID &A.M. NOON G P.M. �
N/GHT NIGHT Nr&kT MID
NWT
--� TIME �1100RS) 03
coax ossaciarss
ItWINEERINQ CONSULTANTS
PAGE 10
ORIGINAL
PART V
CERTIFICATION
I Karl Kuttel certify, as the duly authorized
(Name of Applicant's Representative)
representative of Truckee Donnner Public Utility District
(Name of Applicant)
that the statements made in this preliminary application are complete and
correct to the-best of my knowledge.
(Re resentative Signature) Karl Kuttel
President of the Board of Directors
(Title)
March 26, 1980
(Date)
March 1980_
Append, pc[ It
TRUCKEE DON ER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 309, TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 95734
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Name of Project: Project 79-1 Water System Improvements
Location: Various Locations throughout the Truckee Donner
_Public Utility District, Truckee, California
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Staff Determination
The District's staff, having undertaken and completed an initial
study of this project and has supplemented the initial study in
accordance with Section 28 of the District's guidelines entitled .
"Local Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as Amended", for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the proposed project might have a significant effect on
the environment, has reached the following conclusion:
1. The project could not have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore, a negative declaration should
be prepared.
Date: Ma-rch 12, 1980
Da Cook
Dis rict Engineer
� ,CjFLS /S O
COO; ASSOCIATES
ex IcZI22as Fes\ .Eng;naering. Consultants
2050 Park Avenue
Oroville Cvlif. 959fia
I3062 r ��
V
l � r
\s Ll1 Ergzi'e
�T uF CALVT"--'
CA 80311
3-12-80
r.:v;ucrc ::rr,1+• riracr:: r-.n.ca AA. nrnit.rttcal.2y co-par" with the ► �� i c_
eurroundiny area? X
S:amv anol AQ.lrc:a of Ai�palicaut(n)
12. Doou the projoct conrlict with applic.hlo
Truckee Donner Public Utility'District general j>lanu and npc•cific plans of thu
P.O. BOX 309 County oL tlevada? (Sao S.oten). X
13. Could the project affect the use of a rec-
Truckee, California 95734 rcational area, or area of important visual
Nevada County valuer X
14. will any natural or man-made features in
:}-pc of Project Water System Improvements tlao project area which are unique, that is.
Project 79-1 not found in other parts of the county. State.
or Nation, b, affected? (See Notes). X
Locatio:a or Assessor's Parcel Nunbev At large & 15. Will the project involve construction of -
sectionJ9 7��4, I -xwtiship. T17N __jag, facilities on a slope of 20 percent or X -
g R16E greater?
Dav_- f Sub.aittal 3-3-80 16. will the project involve construction or-
£acilities in an area of geologic hazards? X
+P1 �>Ian or map attached. dated 3-3-80 - - - —"- -
17. Could the project change existing foatures
X
in ,zeros N/A or involve construction in any flood plain,
_ lake, stream, marsla or watercourse? _
to the attached questions shall be used as
ca 'la for the Advisory Review Committee to deLermine 10. I= the projoct, as part of a larger project.
who—cr a project can qualify for a "negative declaration-. one of a series of cwpulativa actions, which
Yf a -negative declaration" is not issued the project sponsor although individually Zmall, may as a wbole X
e- a
will b required to prepare a draft cnvironru t-
�nal. impact have significant environmental impact? _
rc-part subject to the criteria available in the Planning
De�artmont. - - 19. Could the, project change existing features or
any of the region's lass shorelines or atreara
For clue.tlons 1 tl,roucilt 9 write the following terms in the beds? X
space provided: meet.± (no effect whatsoever), trivial (a minor
effect). r.:odrrate (more that& the average effect 20. Could the project serve to encourage, deval-
ignifi.crn_ (a substantial effect). k`or questions 10 through opment of present undeveloped areas or
23 check whether yea or no. If unknown. write "unknown" intensify development of already developed X.
across tho Yes-No spaces. - areas? (see Slotes). _
Tr an C-:planation of an ans,Z is needed, attach the material ' 21. Will the project involve the application,
to this form. _ use, or disposal of potentially hazardous
— __..---"— __materials? (see Notes) _ X
.DOZS VIM PROJECP: 22. -Could the project significantly affect T
the potential use, extraction, or
1. . Ynvolva drainage into a lake, atroam or other
nervation of a natural rosourca7 (see(Sec rotes)` X
perennial water course? NO
23. Could the project result in damage to soil
insert Lorin3 capability or loss of agricultural land? X
2. si;avo an irrpacL- on utilitios and nervices Ouch auf - 24. Additional remarks:_ - Project will result
n. cna, -water. and olectricity7Yes Positive a major strengthening of public- wat
h. uzergoney, police, and iiro?Yes Positive Fire I declare under penalty-of perjury that tho foregoing at
rants are true and correct except as to those stoteTents
c. 1'rnffic axtd traffic controls? No, Primary 1/ - which are declared on information and belies and as to t
chools7 No, Primary 1/ statements I believe them to be tvua..
a Executed at U21JIJ![..L� on the day
aaaitation systems (trcatmant)7NO,Pr1lTlary 1�
11/7.A2Cf..l
No ls�
slid waste disposal? Primery 1
/ -
g, o,hor7 Substantial Benefit to Water Sys 7�-4
em uTery
3. !save an impact on the Air Quality? No '- 1/ Seconda - Impacts addressed i
4. create t pit e? C ens t.Yes No_ Primary 1/ Responses to Q u.es. 18 t-
5. Gcn.rate anOun is of sewaye? No q�yRp=ESSlp,1;�\
6. 1t�t.r.Ave or dent•roy ..an�.unt-a of NO c 1�71'�es+ �riGj}
tr<:en and otht•r flora?
�C p Yn:
%. 11ave. an c•frvct on the faun:. O
(riot,, and other wildlife) _ f,•. ~ �' � �
No
in t):c rcgion'r t No. 13032 f
£S. 11avc any effect or. the health and 1 _ t�•
tafr�ty of Li" rut„re occupant" and/ �! il
P.�
or c-xiatinJ 1r�pulaLion in thu nroa? Yes Pos3-t]...ye
9. stave an crrcct on the ewploy,::"nt
Yes Positive
and t,X bano of the County? _ OF
xss NO COOK ASSOCIATES
EnghQ.eri13 Cons-Janis
Ia. Conflict wit?. exirting )and uson in X thn area _ 2050 Para Avenue
Qrb'.idia, C&w. 95965
PAGE 1
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION BOND LAW OF 1978
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Date
March 25 1980
Applicant's Name
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Applicant's Address
P.O. Box 309, Truckee, California
Applicant Contact Name Telephone No.
Milt Seymour 587-3896
Project Title
f District Meter Program a Water Conservation Campaign
GENERAL. The merits of each proposed project will be determined from the
information provided by applicants in their preliminary application, sup-
porting documents and hearing testimony. Projects selected for funding under
this program by the State Board will be those which, in the Board's judgement,
will provide the greatest benefit to California consistent with the provisions
of the Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978.
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION. Describe the problem or problems to be solved by the
construction. of this project_ . (Continue on additional pages if needed.)
The Truckee Donner Public Utility District has, for years, .
experienced an inordinary high water duty per service ranging to
over 1200 GPD/service. The non prudent use of water requires the
needless extraction of ground water with the attendant waste
of energy and accelerated M & 0 cost.
The existing consumption practies are the result of an abundant
inexpensive supply, very difficult and harsh climatic condition
inducing the ."Let It Run to Prevent Freezing" philosophy and
the maintenance difficulties associated with snow depth ranging
to 20 feet.
March 1980
PAGE 2 A
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION INCLUDING SERVICE AREA. Describe the project that
will solve the problem or problems addressed in item number 1 on the
previous page. If alternative solutions have been considered, briefly
describe them and provide an economic analysis comparing the alternatives.
The economic analysis should contain all capital and operation and main—
tenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be expressed
In current- dollars, excluding inflation- Compute the present value of
these costs using a discount rate of 7.125 percent. Applicants for water
conservation and wastewater reclamation projects will provide the economic
analysis in Part IV. (Continue on additional pages if needed.)
I. Commercial Total District
175 Connections)
New Meters/40' Wire/Remote Device $67y00
Install 123.00
40L.F. Trench @ 6 .00/L.F. 250.00
Total - - $440.00
175 x 440 $77,000
II. Replace 700 existing meters (residence)
New Meters $ 50.90
Install 40.00
Total - - $ 90.00
700 x 40.00 63,000
III. Install meters on existing service that
provided for metering
New Meters $ 50.00
Installation 25 .00
$ 75.00
1000 x 75 .00 75,000
IV. Install meters & boxes on unmetered services
New meters $ 50.00
Excavate, install box & meter, fill 150.00
Box & Lid 20.00
$220.00
800 x 220 00 176,000
Total Program: $391,000
March 1980
o
i
dt 4) w 4 m r-I 0 >, r I 00 ro Uto 41 0
.rl r 4 � H 44 4J r-i a) 'H ro
u �,� •� 44) 4 to G x •r1 o 0 0 4-I p ro m 0� N
ro r� 41ro140 o p0 03E41 0a Ei
,0a44 u 0 00 0 ro41 G 4J a)
x ar w H .0 r 4 0 d) cn •r1 �4 0 W
� r1u 'da, o4 3ro t � P � ro or>a �
au) o '� 4 ro A D N 4J�, rl •H d.! G 0 4d dJ 0 ''0 0 4J 41
•r� , c0 1~ 41 , W H p 0 U 0 ,A 0 0 G cd 0
0 0 a) ° � g ro ro v G 0 0 r x ro ro �, r-I r0 0 r-I
auwocv:j4) ur( ro •H3 � � u0 0G oH W �
ro 0 0 • ro ro ra r� x 'ra
N ,n b $4 41 p 4) rrq 0 4) 0 0 Ei 41 •rl ro ro r-I 4 rl bo G
,cq ,,4opd) o + aNq 0cd 0 > UpGcdm •H :14j
udcoga of a )a PElw0 'r+ 0 .0 G 300
0 0 N 0 0 al H4 N 0 4J U r-I -Hp 0 0
0
00 44bA004 N � 0r-4 44
agivaaou , -Hm . �1U G � 0 •r10 A.�1Pu
r, 1a � 00tCu � $ N 0 •rl 0 •r100 U103l� 0
y u ,H 4) °u r{ a! r. y 0 > ro 4J 4J 0 .sa 0 U ro U 4-I
q A0 .0 vi 0waUua 0 'H w> r4 cn � r� umu G0 0
�+ 0 P •ra3rop roro 00 o .u0
V1 0 X (1) 0 x � ro 0 � U 4-4 94. P
b4) Na4oan 0 $40G 0 •r1 •r1H0
0 y L "1 V U U1 N 0 .d a0 0 M 411 ram- co H }1 G
.u, aNi y a ra ro , N w > .� 0 0 0 4J n •r1 •ra 0 'ra b>, 0 • 4- '
41
P a o 1-4 0 1r , a 0 o U) r- 00 (n G 3 'o ;n U) ro 4J CC
Id p r+ rIGU G cd m UGp
H y W 10 •r4 u ro N 0 n '4 Id p+ 0 ro 0 •ri cn cd (D rt a) r-I •H •rl 0
H U R1 to •rl q a) t .1 0 r
� 4a AJ a1 N P U) d0 cd p U 0 P 4a
H H 0 0 rl a cd 0 (d r-I 0 rl Cd 0 00 U ^ 'rl > 11 10 0
4 0 0 r-4 0 U r--{1 ,A •rl 'H v rl 4..1 0 b4 cn 0 E
a, WHrnu0N -HCdUa1 ,3U � 3 � H � ro Q) 00 •H (DA ar-I
z oy0u >, 00PNd 'd 00 0 044 V 'd 5 Pao 0cd
H z0 •> d •dnC .0 GG0 G 3 � •rl U) •r{ 0aJ 00pd
U Haual4C4 .,4f! $4u co U) .a H � A ,.I � 3NpU Pa $ ro 'd
h �+ 0 4) 0 0 :$ 0 V 0 cd 4) rl ro ro u 0 cd �J 0 P bo ra 0 ,>
o a 0 u 'd A H u (a U a, ua co a cd 4 -H En r+ G � Cl G p •ra
a z q u ,i U) o k 0 a3" G •rl 5 M 4 4-1 4J 0 41 0 •r4 w p : 'H I'd
11 00041 G -1 pNG 044r� 0
H W HN N 0 44 al 'tl N ' ro r ':U r�i G U U U 0 0 l -H0 U dJ rl 'rl
z A a rn N cd ro 5 bo 0 •H 0 U) 4J ro 0 ro 4J r-1 U rl ro '
O 0 w >>" N 3 H G •r{ro G r-I 0 'rl 'rl G •rl ro �+ . 0
H p H 'd rc.0 to bo 0 4 •ri 0 a X 0 cn P U W 4J 0 G 0
PH+ P" ro G o roc •i 0 H 'H cn •r1 0 0 0 U 0 a) P G El 0 Z M 0 4J
,ovgcd..00roa
ro r4 P CO rn •ri S I 0 N d-1 G p 5
cJ 41 60 0 u z 'd q ro � �+ ro � H ro ro u +� o ro o
U1 a1 �C ,4o . cAod � 0 � ro0G0 0w000v 9oN ,� �t
w a) a Q 0 o +1 ,r 'r+ �+ 0 G �+ 0 -Hro U) 0 U G 0 0 0 U 41
A4 0%., r. 0 " U) 0 G Lo �jro )a � 0 0 G pr-1 0
Ho000NNu •0 G GGObord ur�1 � k )a41G �ro
Wy ° 0 oU) o0 �1G0 GSA ' roro0 G0 •rar+ 0
•rf 'N 0 0 alal �, 0P41 Uro •HHP UroN u p 9 >
h r{ > u ro u 0 0 ra 0 -A ro ro 0 0 3 p p 4J •r1
o ri 0 N a q a) )~ ro 0 aJ r-I a) CO 04 ro �j r1 0 cd 0 0 ro 0 G P
a •3abF+ + � X000 X, a) 40000 rIGr1004-I xGr� 0a)
N
w
W N N (n r• n m n, am 0 r• h-9 0 ro H rtH n ro N p• ro
. m too.GOr• 0. �hm ;' dEn Kd 0P' lb hi rno n " Pt
n co m rtm o m m H. E p .0 0
0 {n•rt 10 ro m r• 0 m r• a rt hi G 9 p rr H "
H• 0 � ri 0rica0 P� ►-' On :jU, Nrt n .Gas mw rt00 m00P. m
VD (D a mGmrt w'd1.Cr• rtN0 "dm H. r• o -+ ap 0rt ma Nn
n 11rt0rtamr• 0 NH o,Q mrma 'd0 rtH Gm I an �lhm
G J
0 0 d n rt n G 004 r• 0 n rt m v' m VO a �
m rtrtt H rtrw oC rfi o r• rtn rt 0 rt m 0 m a' .
0 � C m �' rrrt or• r• m0Nmrt may dr• F-i rt m
m m 0 m m -4 td owe cn rt oaw a 0 rtN E rL0 n0 0 r
(D CL10hi0 m • m0 (D o N It :a' lb omm Mrrpm
m a n m rnnti art v> m rt $ O 0 mrt rt M " H n y
CJ' I t1 V 0 It 0 m m N W m 0 0 � n 0 h•'• `C m r-
m0ml4C0W It O' hiwCn r• rt it 00 m rt Wn � �
14 ht hJ r• rt n 'd r• °C O r•QQ H 0 � m Nrt 0 0 m hJ o N
0m m a. m rtna� rt 0 b rim P' rt rtr• Non
d n xm m o m rt ON (D '0 a a (D .(D o cn G H. v W M
art rt m rt hJ� x n o in n m m G m m r-h (D
Sri OP� m 00 0010 � n H. r• n n "< nn m W m n a
,roro
rtmr• ddrtn0 0 0Idm00 Crt >ca nn rh N WWr• " o
n r• m 0 0 Enm 0 rt (D p n d H• r• wm r• 0 G G C w0 �
m 0 m 0 rtm rtr• rtrtri m xa 00 M :J 0 (nd a
mNrr4N (Dw 001 NOD h N0 rtrr N rt (D
(Dd rt G m artm rtr• rtr• w0 m r• r• m H. a � 0 y
briwr• a It mri o' r• rtOp r• d0 En mH oW x z
r• 0 m n rt G H H• m G 0 m O E d (A H 0 n rt " 0 cr N
m :� Wrt0nm0 h70 rtd rt r• rt H. mrtrt " CL:r
rtma ofrtrt E oa drom040o" NG mF3 m0 nxm
r• ri r• G fJr• m m rt wren m Hm m m n N m m n m E "
p q• ortr• rt Nhi m rrttrt H m m rt "F3 Hy
GQ (D d m o4P'mrt0N (Dd VP) Cm 0hi brd0 0n00) cr+
mmn mht `4m (D00 r• MGQ r• ri 0m mh0 H, MU, " m
N4 m 0 m to 0 m n Him m n m 0 rt 0 C1 0 IC n �
(DG n �C n 0 w n0 rtrtrt0 m rt � m m o U.
Cwtu Da I � 0 a rt
m 0d (D o
(DN rtgr• 0 rtnmOFdrtr• rt m m 0n " a. p
Nm 0 r• r• 0 p 0 n C ai 14 rtti nMAN w.
mao+ cr09 h w0w01100rt It '4m Md
m m m 0
• n r• m H. (D p d - H r• 0 H. 00 a 0 0
rh 0n mb rr aim riN m •d 00 n (0r•
00 0) t r• 000 r•r 0 (D Ga m 0 rl rr ° P.rt
ht C n ri a d 0 rt.rh n r• a 0 . n r• n d r d w a
0 Q4 0 rt m r• � Nri p � mrt C H. N
r• mCCI_j amGrt (DH0 m (D goo G �
D r• r• rt p as (Dq G (A rt hJ 11 m ro
° p.
rt 0 h 04 HJ m" m m a q 0 (D N rt ►J H o p tt v
(D OmNr• mmrs00noa Hti Ulrt cnm CD (D 0 m
rtN nar• 0Q40p0N N 4 0 w rt Nrt (D bb0
ro Gro a0 4 a. n m Oro o om N m co 0 M
�t rt oa rt r• m m 0 0 d ri O n' o hi m a a a v� m w
m 0 p' o ri 0 0 n r• rt m 0 om om a G µ o wrt
0 rt (D C m rtG 0 n ari m oa a • E 0 rrn 0• N
a (D (D 0r• aad0mmn 0ri GAG u� w p' G wr?
r• 0 m 0 a rt 0 m m N CL ti 0 to bm r• rt 0 N m rt
m 0
� � n � 0mrt0Ga � � Cm t7 nr
w N 0 m al n G (D rr 10
00 n rim 0on � • Hrt4 P) � � � ~fD � a
" N rt 0 C rh 0 0 m H. G H G 0 "d •d n •b
• 0 G 0 r• d rt o r• Hr• . rt m a H.ro m
x hJ n m d d m m r• � d I-h �C hJ (D n m � i w
N m a. (A rt 0 m H.
0 rt
�
0 0 0 rtH ft a
rtG n
m
PAGE 4
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
4. ENVIROMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Briefly describe the environmental conse-
quences if the project is constructed or include a copy of the Environ-
mgntal Impact Report, or Negative Declaration or Notice of Exemption.
(Continue on additional pages if needed.)
There will be a positive impact on the environment due to
increased water availability due to. conservation, the reduced
draw on the ground water supply and an over savings of energy
required to provide one of life' s vital commodities .
Please see the Environmental Document attached.
j
t
March 1980
PAGE 5
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION
1. PROPOSED CAPITAL COSTS BUDGET (1) (PROGRAM ELIGIBLE COSTS)
i -
�-. COST CLASSIFICATION Applicant's Other Grant Total Cost Pei
Share Shares Share Classificatioi
A. FACILITIES PLANNING (2) $ 0 $ - $ 0 $ 0
B. FACILITIES DESIGN (2) O - 0 0
C. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION (3) 46,000 - 345,000 391 2 000
D. OTHER (Explain) - -
E. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 46,000 345,000 391,000
2. PROPOSED FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS BUDGET (4) (NON PROGRAM COSTS)
A. DEBT SERVICE 16,003 None
B. FIXED COSTS 539,187 None
r; C. VARIABLE COSTS 109,500 None
D. OTHER COSTS (E;c lain)r/o 0 & M 4,000
E. TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS 668,690
)TNOTE S:
(1) Indicate the date assumed for proposed capital costs.
(2) Program eligible costs for Facilities Planning and Design include direct project
related administrative expenses, consultant architectural and engineering fees,
applicant's architectural and engineering fees, equipment and contingencies-
(3) Program eligible costs for Facilities Construction include those in (2) above plus
the costs for rights-of-way, land, relocation and structures.
(4) Indicate the date assumed for proposed first full year operation and maintenance
costs.
March 1980
PAGE 6
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued)
3. SOURCES OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR CAPITAL COSTS
A. APPLICANT'S SHARE(1)
(1) Cash on Hand $ 0
(2) Mortgages 0
(3) Securities 0
(4) Bonds ' 0 _-
(S) Tax Levies 0 _. -
(6) Non Cash (Explain) Reserve for future meters 2. 46,000
t (7) Other (Explain) 0
(8) TOTAL - Applicant's Share $ 46 000
! B. OTHER SHARES( )
(1) State $ 0
(2) Federal 0
(3) Other (Explain) 0
(4) TOTAL- Other Shares 0
C. TOTAL - All Capital Costs Matching Funds (lines A(8) and B(4)) 46,000
4. SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS 1
f
A. TAX LEVIES $ 0
Connection Fee
B. FEES (Explain)_ Reserve for future meters & Service Charges
10,000
C. OTHER (Explain)__ 0
D. TOTAL - All First Year Operation & Maintenance Costs (lines A thru C) -0 000
FOOTNOTE:
(1) Describe assurance of applicant's share or other shares of matching funds or in-kind
services.
March 1980
PAGE 7
PART III
PROJECT. 121PLEMENTATION PLA14 AND MASTER SCHEDULE
1. CURRENT PROJECT STATUS. (Check appropriate box)
Pre Planning / / Facilities Design
Facilities Planning
2. ESTIMATED DATE CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN ON PROJECT.
MO. YR.
6 86
3. PROVIDE A MASTER SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING MAJOR ACTIVITIES IN
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES. The Master Schedule will form the
basis for the planning of the design and construction activities of the
project. It identifies the dates of major activities and acts as a
communication device between the various parties.
4. DESCRIBE POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY STOP THE PROJECT.
S. DESCRIBE WHO WILL OWN AND OPERATE THE PROJECT. .
3. The replacement program may begin upon project approval and
funding. The District will purchase and in all meters
and readout devices using District Employees temporary
help. The objective would be to accomplish the entire project
in two summer construction seasons .
riarch 1980
PAGE 8
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS. Provide an analysis weighing the benefits of the
project against the economic, social and environmental impacts of the
project. If this analysis is contained in existing reports, submit one
copy of each report with this preliminary application. The economic
portion of the analysis should contain all capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be
expressed in current dollars, excluding inflation. Compute the present
value of these costs using a discount rate of 7.125 percent.
A comparison must be made with the economic cost of alternative water
sources. The economic cost of alternative water sources is not the price
of water, but rather the future capital (if comparing with new water
sources) and operation and maintenance costs to produce and deliver the
water to the customer. For water conservation and wastewater reclamation
prpjects it is appropriate to compare costs on a unit cost of water saved
or produced basis after computing the present values. (Continue on
additional pages if needed.)
Water Conservation Cost Comparison
Project Cost
PW = 391,000 -4- 200 (10.49187) _ $393,100
1979 Unit Cost of Water
�^ $664,690/yr = $1.46/1000 Gal = Total Cost
456,822 x 103 Gal/Yr
$109,500/yr
456,822 x 103 Gal/Yr = $0.24/1000 Gal = Variable Cost
Cost of Water Saved
250,000 GPD x 365 x $0.24 = $21,900
year 1000 Gal
PW $21,900 x 10.49187 = $230,000
March 198&
PAGE 9
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS (Continued)
2. FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS.
A. In addition to the project budget Information suppliedin Part II,
estimate the following:
(1) Price of alternative fresh water for the current year and in the
first and fifth years of project operation.
(2) Project expenses in the first and fifth years of operation,
including debt service and operation and maintenance costs.
Provide three sets of calculations assuming State grant levels of
50, 75 and 87.5 percent.
(3) Price and total revenue from the reclaimed water in the first
and fifth years of project operation.
Take into consideration the estimated reclaimed water deliveries in
i the first and fifth years of project operation rather than assuming
that the project will be operating at design capacity. -
B. Describe market assurances, including user commitments for reclaimed
water.
C. Discuss any other feasibility issues not covered elsewhere in this
preliminary application.
(Continue on additional pages if needed. )
�^ 3. FEASIBILITY OF WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS. Discuss any other feasibility
Issues not covered elsewhere in this preliminary application. (Continue
on additional pages if needed. )
No other feasibility issues are included.
March 1980
PAGE 10
PART V ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATION
I Karl Kuttel certify, as the duly authorized
(Name of Applicant's Representative)
.� representative of Truckee Donner Public Utility District ,
(Name of Applicant)
that the statements made in this preliminary application are complete and
correct to the .best of my knowledge.
(Representative Signature)
President of the Board of Directors
(Title)
March 26, 1980
(Date)
r
. March 1980_
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 309
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 95734
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
NAME OF PROJECT = District Meter Program and Water
Conservation Campaign
LOCATION : At various locations throughout the District where
the existing facilities are located.
Entity or Person Undertaking Pro-iect.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
t Staff Determination
The District' s staff, having undertaken and completed an initial
study of this project and has supplemented the initial study in
accordance with Section 28 of the District' s guidelines entitled
"Local Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as Amended", for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the proposed project might have a significant effect on
the environment, has reached the .following conclusion:
1) The Project could not have a significant effect on the
Environment.
2) Further the Project is categorically exempted in accordance
with Section 3.4 Ministerial Projects & Section 3.5 Class III
of the District Guidelines.
3) A Notice of Filing shall be recorded with the Nevada Co. Clerk.
Date: March 26 , 1980
Dan J. Cook
gpFESS/0 District Engineer
O Q .�f R.C.E. 13062
N.P.E. 2217
qye Oo c2 O.P.E. 5593
LLJ <7 o N.W.R.S . 596
No. 13062
COOK ASSOCIATES
Enc3' ty�Q2` Engineering Consultants
qTF OF CAl�F 2060 Park Avenue
Oroville, Ca. 95965
- pg 12
. - Yon 1:o
r_.:Viltoaa ascAt. RAVING FORM 11. Acathe..tically comparo with the
aurroundiiju area? X
bi a:nc� and ABd rc:,a of Applicant(n)icant(a)
12. Door the project conflict with applicable
Truckee Donner Public Utility District general plans and al,ccifIc plans of the
P.O. BOX 309 County of Nevada? (Sep 14otea)- X
Truckee Ca. 95734 13. Could the project affect the use of a rec-
reational area. or area of important visual
value? X
14. Will any natural or man-made features in -
Type of Project District Meter Program the project area which-are unique.-that is, _
not found in other parts of the county, State,
and Conservation Campaign or Nation, ba affected? (see Notes), X
I.e"_ion or Assessor's Parcel Nu,—a>er at large 6 IS- will the project involve construction of
St �n. -Twnabip. . Rge greatelr7e9 on a elope of 20 percent or X
Da of Sulwaittal March 26, 1980 16. Will the project involve construction of X
NIA facilities in an area of geologic hazards?
+P1 'Ian or map attached, dated - '—
17. Could the project chango existing features
_Ain acres NIA - or involve construction in any flood plain. X
t lake, strewn. march or watercourse? _
The ahswers to the attached questions shall be used as - ~—
criteria for the Advisory Revi.ow Committee to determine IS- Is the project, as part of a larger project.
whether a project can qualify for a "negative declaration". one of a series of cumulative actions, which
If a "negative declaration" is not issued, the project sponsor although individually small, may as a whole - X
will be required to prepare a draft environmental impact have significant environmental impact? _
'report subject to tho criteria available in the Planning -
Department- 19. Could the project change existing features of
any of the regions lake shorelines or stream X
For cluentions 1 through 9 write the following terms Lit the beds? _
spaco provided: nonce (no effect whatsoever), trivial (a m.i_-nor
effect), r..odcrate (more than the average effect 20. Could the project serve to encourage devel- -
cxaa:n fi.c=nt (a subatantLal effect). For questions 10 through opment of present undeveloped areas or
23 cii._cc wliether yes or no. If unknown, write "unknown" intensify development of already developed X
: across the Yes-No spaces. areas? (see Notes).
If an oxplanation of an answer is needed, attach the material 21. Will the project involve the application,
-tc, this form- _ - use, or disposal of potentially hazardous X
_.•._ _ - - __ ____ - _materials? (See Notes) _
.Do:.S SHE PROJECT- 22. .Could the project significantly affect ,
the potential use, extraction, or coa-
l. Involve drainage into a lake, stream or other - nervation of a natural resource? X
perennial water course? (See Notes). _
None 23- Could the project result In damage to soil
(Insert torso capability or loss of agricultural land? ._ X
2, 11�avo an impact on utilities and cervices such ass 24. Additional remarks: The Project will
A. Gras. water, and electricity? None _ conserve energy & water
,^L:- crgency, police, and fire? None I declare under penalty of perjury that tho foregoing sta
None monts are true and correct except as to those statements
Traffic and traffic controls? which are declared on Information and boliof and an- to t1i
None statements I believe them to be true.
3choolc? -
None' Executed atOroville on the 26th day c
>anitation systems (treatment)? _
f. Solid waste disposal? 'None March 29 80-
g. other? Signature.
3- Have an impact on the Air Quality? None
4. Create noire?(Const. Yes) None _- C
S. Gen-rato an nunto of sewage? None - Q�O`E .4� -
6, ltnmovo or dentroy amount-a of None �iti
treua and other flala? = v
7. :lave on effect on the fauna I� 4� O� r•_
(fiut..- deer. :,nd other wildlife) - C z
In tho region? None No. 13062
0. :lave any etfcct on the health and
cafety of the future occupants and/ None
or existing population in the area? - y-d E'_14'
9. 11avo an cffcct on tho ca+ploymant
and tax bano of tho County? None OF CAt
YES NO COOK ASSIO TLS
10, ^ nClict with oxintin Sand uaon j=nglneering Consuharrts
lien area X 2060 Park Avenue
Oreyillz,�, Calif. 9595-
F'9 t3
NOTICE OF FILING
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -
,!esponsible Agency: TRUCKEE DONNER Contact: Phone:
,PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT A. Milton Seymour 916-587-3896
ddress: City: County: Zip:.
t P.O. Box 309 - Truckee Nevada 95734
•oject Title� District Meter Program and Area: Zoning;
1 -Water Conservation Campaign N/A N/A
Project Location: At Various Locations Assessor's Parcel No.:
Throughout the District N/A
Project Desciption & Benefits: The project consists of ins talling individual water
service meters on each existing service and installation of meters at key
locations within the water distribution system -to maintain tight control
and early notification of system losses . The results of the project are
expected to be a 20% reduction in the total water production without
changing the district life style. Energy, ground water supplies, and cost
will be saved as a result of the project.
Findings: 1. An Environmental Assessment has been prepared by -the Staff and
reviewed by the Board.
2. An Environmental Impact Report has not been prepared_
3. The Project is categorically exempt from C .E.Q.A, per Section 3.5
C1assIll of the District Implementation Guidelines arid-Section
3.4 Ministerial Acts .
Date_ March 26, -1980 Attest: County Clark
Filing Data
Signed
Karl Kuttel_
Title President of the Board
A. Milton Seymour
Clerk & Gen. Manager
PAGE 1
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
STATE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
CLEAN WATER AND WATER CONSERVATION BOND LAW OF 1978
PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Date
March 25, 1980
Applicant's Name
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Applicant's Address
P.O. Box 309 Truckee California.
-T
Applicant Contact Name Telephone No.
Milt Seymour 587-3896
Project Title
Well Hazard and Line Replacement Project
GENERAL. . The merits of each proposed project will be determined from. the
information provided by applicants in their preliminary application, sup—
porting documents and hearing testimony. Projects selected for funding under
this program by the State Board will be those which, in the Board's judgement,
will provide the greatest benefit to California consistent with the provisions
of the Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law of 1978.
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION. Describe the problem or problems, to be solved by the
construction of this project. (Continue on additional pages if needed.)
A. The -water system in Truckee is composed of older and newer
sub-systems . Much of the older piping is badly deteriorated,
corroded, undersized and in need of replacement. An
estimated 207. of the town demand (150 GPM) is attributed to
leakage from the older piping. Resulting low pressures and
reduced fireflows jeopardize the public's health and safety.
B. Donner Creek Well #1 is a 'health hazard. It must be filled
in to conform to Health Standards .
March 1980
r
PAGE 2
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION INCLUDING SERVICE AREA. Describe the project that
will solve the problem or problems addressed in item number 1 on the
previous page. If alternative solutions have been considered, briefly
describe them and provide an economic analysis comparing the alternatives.
The economic analysis should contain all capital and operation and main-
tenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be expressed
In current dollars, excluding inflation. Compute the present value of
these costs rising a discount rate of 7.125 percent. Applicants for water
conservation and wastewater reclamation projects will provide the economic
analysis in Part IV. (Continue on additional pages if needed. )
A. To correct the problem of low pressures, leakage and
deteriorated and undersized pipe, the solution involves
each of the following:
1. A. location of defective, undersized and -- -
deteriorated lanes and replacement of
4000 L.F. of piping,@ $30. L.F. $120,000
and reconnection of 200 existing services
@ $200/conn 40,000
2. Loop tie the 2" dead ended pipes in
` Meadow Lake Park 5,500
3. Loop tie dead end pipes serving the
Tahoe Forest Hospital 25,100
4. Install cathodic protection to reduce the
corrosion rate. This will be done at
selected locations throughout the project 38,000
f Sub Total $228,600
B. Fill in Donner Creek Well to conform to
Health Standards 12650
Construction $230,250
Planning & Design 16,000
Total Project $246,250
March 1980
�1
t
PAGE 3
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
3. PROJECT BENEFITS. Describe the primary and secondary benefits to be
realized from construction of the project. Quantify if possible. Appli—
cants for water conservation and wastewater reclamation projects specify
how much water will be saved or reclaimed. (Continue on additional pages
i if needed.)
A. 7The primary benefits include conservation of about .150 GPM
lost through leakage, and increased fire flow pressures
to safeguard the public safety and the savings of 90,000- KWH/Yr.
The secondary benefits will be reduced line losses and
pumping costs, equalized pressures due to looping dead ended
lines, and an adequate and continuous water supply for the
constituents of the service area.
B. The benefit of filling in the unused production well is the
prevention of .potable water contamination from surface
runoff for health preservation.
r
March 1980
PACE 4
PART I
PROJECT NARRATIVE (continued)
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES. Briefly describe the environmental conse-
quences if the project is constructed or include a copy of the Environ-
mental Impact Report, or Negative Declaration or Notice of Exemption.
(Continue on additional pages If needed.)
Please see Environmental Documents Attached.-
s
/"`
March 1980
f
PAGE 5
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFOPMATION
1.. PROPOSED CAPITAL COSTS BUDGET (1) (PROGRAM ELIGIBLE COSTS)
COST CLASSIFICATION Applicant's Other Grant Total Cost Per
�. Share Shares Share Classification
A. FACILITIES PLANNING (2) $ 80..00 $ - $ 7920 $ 8.000
B. FACILITIES DESIGN (2) 80.00 - 7920 8,000
C. FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION (3) 28,575 - 201,675. 230, 250
D. OTHER (Explain)
E. TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 28, 735 217,515 246,250
2. PROPOSED FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS BUDGET (4) (NON PROGRAM COSTS)
A. DEBT SERVICE 16,003 None
B_ FIXED COSTS 539,187 None
C. VARIABLE COSTS 109,500 None
D. OTHER COSTS (Ex lain)1'/ 0 & M 2,460 None
E. TOTAL FIRST YEAR O&M COSTS 667,090 None
)TNOTE S
(1) Indicate the date assumed for proposed capital costs.
(2) Program eligible costs for Facilities Planning and Design include direct project
related administrative expenses, consultant architectural and engineering fees,
applicant's architectural and engineering fees, equipment and contingencies.
(3)_ Program eligible costs for Facilities Construction include those in (2) above plus
the costs for rights-of-way, land, relocation and structures-
(4) Indicate the date assumed for proposed .first full year operation and.maintenance
costs.
March 1980
r^
PAGE 6
PART II
PROJECT BUDGET INFORMATION (Continued)
3. SOURCES OF MATCHING FUNDS FOR CAPITAL COSTS
.�- A. APPLICANT'S SHARE(1)
(1) Cash on Hand $
(2) Mort a es O
(3) Securities
(4) Bonds 0 _
(5) Tax Levies U
(6) Non Cash (Explain)
(7) Other (Explain) Facilities Fees (58.5% of funds available) -28 735
(8) TOTAL - Applicant's Share $ 28,735
B. OTHER SHARES(1)
~ (1) State $ U
(2) Federal 0
(3) other (Explain) 0
r� (4) TOTAL - Other Shares $ O
C. TOTAL - All Capital Costs Matching. Funds (lines A(8) and B(4)) $ 28,735
t SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR FIRST YEAR OPERATION & MAINTENANCE COSTS }
(These values relate to this Project only - See Audit for TotA District)
A. TAX LEVIES $ 0
B. FEES (Explain) Service Charge 2 460
C. OTHER (Explain) 0 .
D. TOTAL - All First Year Operation & Maintenance Costs (lines A thru C) Is 2,460
FOOTNOTE:
(1) Describe assurance of applicant's share or other shares of matching funds or in-kind
services.
March 1980
f _
PAGE 7
PART III
PROJECT I2IPLEMENTATION PLAN AND MASTER SCHEDULE
1. CURRENT PROJECT STATUS. (Check appropriate box)
/X / Pre Planning and /X / Facilities Design
Facilities Planning
2. ESTIMATED DATE CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN ON PROJECT.
MO. YR.
6 81
3. PROVIDE A MASTER SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECT, INCLUDING MAJOR ACTIVITIES IN
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES. The Master Schedule will form the
basis for the planning of the design and construction activities of the
project. It identifies the dates of major activities and acts as a
communication device between the various parties.
4. DESCRIBE POTENTIAL ROADBLOCKS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY STOP THE PROJECT.
5. DESCRIBE WHO WILL OWN AND OPERATE THE PROJECT.
3.
GOGAT/OrV p�5/G.V
PROGR�JM 7-BO
6-So
ENY/RON- PRO✓ECT' O/STRICT G'piY/iI9E�c/GE
.tilENlAG .2E'�RT L{PPRORAG liYO.eK
sTz/o�E's S-� 9-BO 6-8/
PGANNlNG -
3-� SURREYS
7-SO
4. None Foreseen Other Than The Cost
5 . Truckee Donner Public Utility District
March 1980
PAGE 8
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS
1. COST EFFECTIVENESS. Provide an analysis weighing the benefits of the
project against the economic, social and environmental impacts of the
project. If this analysis is contained in existing reports, submit one
copy of each report with this preliminary application. The economic
portion of the analysis should contain all capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs for a 20 year period. These costs should be
expressed in current dollars, excluding inflation. Compute the present
value of these costs using a discount rate of 7.125 percent.
A comparison must be made with the economic cost of alternative water
sources. The economic cost of alternative water sources is not the price
of water, but rather the future capital (if- comparing with new water
sources) and operation and maintenance costs to produce and deliver the
water to the customer. For water conservation and wastewater reclamation
prtpjects it is appropriate to compare costs on a unit cost of water saved
or- produced basis after computing the present values. - (Continue on
additional pages if needed.)
Water Conservation Cost Comparison
E .
Proiect Cost:
PW = Capital Cost + 2460 (P, 7.125,20)
A
246,250 + 2460 (10.49187)
T^ -
$272,060
r Unit Cost of Water in 1979
664,690/year $1.46/1000 Gal Total (F + V)
4563-822 x 103 Gal/Year 0.24/1000 Gal Variable only
Present Worth of 150 GPM Leakage
10.49187 x 150 GPM x 1440 ' x 365d x $0.16 = $133,000
d y 1000 Gal
Break-Even Point Project vs Leakage
$272,000 x 1000 Gal x 1 = 207 GPM Leakage
0.24 10.49187 x 365 x 1440
90'/ confidence level that existing leakage exceeds 150 GPM
March 1980
PAGE 9
PART IV
FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF
WATER CONSERVATION AND WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS (Continued)
2. FEASIBILITY OF WASTEWATER RECLAMATION PROJECTS.
A. In addition to the project budget information supplied in Part II,
�-- estimate the following:
(1) Price of alternative fresh water for the current year and in the
first and fifth years of project operation.
(2) Project expenses in the first and fifth years of operation,
including debt service and operation and maintenance costs.
Provide three sets of calculations assuming State grant levels of
50, 75 and 87.5 percent.
(3) Price and total revenue from the reclaimed water in the first
and fifth years of project operation.
Take into consideration the estimated reclaimed water deliveries in
the first and fifth years of project operation rather than assuming
that the project will be operating at design capacity.
B. Describe market assurances, including user commitments for reclaimed
water.
C. Discuss any other feasibility issues not covered elsewhere in this
preliminary application.
(Continue on additional pages if needed. )
3. FEASIBILITY OF WATER CONSERVATION PROJECTS. Discuss any other feasibility
issues not covered elsewhere in this preliminary application. (Continue
o-a additional pages if needed. )
There is a separate_. analysis-and Grant Application relating to
a Water Conservation Campaign that is expected to provide major
community benefits.
March 1980
�1
PAGE 10
ORIGINAL
V 0RIGINA
_
CERTIFICATION
I Karl Kuttel certify, as the duly authorized
(Name of Applicant's Representative)
representative of Truckee Donner Public Utility District
(Name of Applicant)
that the statements made in this preliminary application are complete and
correct to the .best of my knowledge.
(Re resentative Signature) Ta-r-i Kuttel`
President of the Board of Directors
(Title)
March 26, 1980
(Date)
March 1980_
TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT
"P9 1I
POST OFFICE BOX 309
TRUCKEE, CALIFORNIA 95734
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
NAME OF PROJECT = Well Hazard Elimination and Pipe Line
.-- Repair Project. (1978 State Bond Funds)
LOCATION : At various locations throughout the District where
the existing facilities are located.
Entity or Person Undertaking Project:.
Truckee Donner Public Utility District
Staff Determination
The District' s staff, having undertaken and completed an initial
study of this project .and has supplemented the initial study in
accordance with Section 28 of the District's guidelines entitled
"Local Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as Amended", for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the proposed project might have a significant effect on
the environment, has reached the following conclusion:
1) The Project could not have a significant effect on the
Environment.
ram` 2) Further the Project is catergorically exempted in accordance
with Section 3.5, Class II of the District Guidelines .
3) A Notice of Filing shall be recorded -with the Nevada County Clerk.
Date: March 26, 1980 .
r
a .J. Cook
strict Engineer
Q�O�FSSiO/jrq R.C.E. 13062
4� !F N.P.E. 2217
O.P.E. 5593
N.W.R.S . 596
No. 13062 .
COOK ASSOCIATES
`rT9lyIt Enc3l- Q, Engineering Consultants
lF OF CA'06 2060 Park Aventie
Oroville, Ca. 95965
r
F0R:4 11. AeOLI.rtleolly compare wLth t1,o [ p ron ;e
surroundinJ area? X
N a;�v ..v] r.c:�tress ofApplicant(n) I —
12. Done. the project conflict with applicahle
Truckee Donner Public UtilityDistrict l r Plana of tho
general .lan_, and s x_•ciEic
P.O., Box 309 County of Nevada? (Sao Notf.$)_
Truckee Ca. 95734 la. could t1lo project affect the use of rec-
reational area, or area of inpo=tant visual
value?
Well Hazard Elimination and 1.4. will any natural or man-made features in
Type of Proj,ct the project area which are unique,'that is,
Pipe Line Replacement Project not found in other parts of the County, state,
or Nation, be, affected? (See Notes)_
Location or Assessor's Parcel Ntunl,er, at large 6, 15. Will tho project involve construction of
facilities on a slope of 20 perce-nt or-
Section •Twnship" Rgs greater? -
March 26 1980
D:. o£ Submittal a 1fi. Will the project involve construction of �
N/A facilitios in an area of geologic hazards? _
rp Plan or nap attached, dated - —�
17. could tho project cSango existing features
-` in acres N/A or involve construction in any flood plain,
lace, stream, mars2, or watorcourao? _
Th.- ,n:wars to the attached cuestions shall be used as
critcrla for the Advisc,ry Revl-w committee to determine IS. I3 the project, as part of a larger project,
whethor a project cad qualify for a "negative declaration one of a series of cumulative actions, which
If a "ncgativc declaration" i.s not issued the project sponsor although individually shall, may as a whale
will be required to prepare, a draft cnvironmpntcl Impact have significant environmental Impact?
foport subject to the criteria available in the Planning
Z>--partnent. 19. Could the. project change existing features of
any of the regions lake shorelines or stream
For nuertions I throuc:h 9 write, the following terms In the bedsle
space provided: non.± (no effect:t wl,atsaeverj, trivial (a minor -
cffoct), noderzt_ (more than the average effect 20. Could the project serve to encourage devel-
aictni:fi=,czar (a subatantial. effect). For questions 10 through opment of present undeveloped areas or -
23 ch<_c% whether yes or no. If urilcnown, writs "unknown" . intensify development of already developed
across the, Ycs,No spaces. areas? (see Notes).
If' An C-Xplanatlon of an answer Is needed, attach the material _ 21. Will the project involve the application,
�tc, this form. - use, or disposal of potentially hazardous -
____" _materials? (See Notes) j!
Do 5 IE PROjECTt 22. .Could the project significantljr affect T -
a into a lake, ntroam or other the potential use, extraction, or con-
I. Involve drainage Into- servation of a natural resource? (See l+etas),_„�
' pozonnlxal water course? -
None 23. Could the project result in danage to soil
Insert toxin capability or loss of agricultural land?
2. itavo an Ir..pact on utilities and services such ass ,. 24. Additional remarks: The Project will .
Is. Gns, water, and olectricity7 None conserve energy be Water U. uargency, polico, and fire? None I declare under penalty
of perjury that the foregoing at
None rtants are truo and correct except as to those statements
��.'raffic and traffic controls? which are declared on information and ballet and t,s to t
scboola? None statements I believe them to bo true. "
anitation systems (treatmentl? None rxocutod atOroVZlle on the 26th day
r "None March 19 8Q
-olid waste disposal? -
g. other?
3_ llavc an impact on the Air Quality? None
4. Crc,ato noise?(Const. Yes) None -_-
5.' None � �viU'.4/
G. )c.x.rovo or dcntroy amc.unt-a of None - t4 -�1 e,
tr<.cu and otl,cr flora?
1. ltavc ;In rfrt�ct on t1.c fauna /� �� 0� .
(fiuh, Ov.-ir, and other wildlife) e
In tha region? NOri C No. 13002
0. Nave any affect on the health and _ _ w{
safety of thr future occupants and/ None'
or exioti.ng population in the aroa? _ lyl j E'_g1� Q`l
9. have an cffcct on the en.ployn4nt
and tax baao of tba County? None OF CAL i
YES No COOK ASSOCIATLS
20,/^�.nflict with oxicting land uses Engineering Consul.cnts
Lh-, aroa ,T X 2aso Park Avenue
t
flrori!!a, Calif. 9596-5