A.    Completion date: Summer 2001 rehabilitation of existing wells
Questions 1 through 4 apply only to the Summer 2001 rehabilitation phase.

1.    Are well nos. 1, 2, and 6 expected to produce any water after rehabilitation?  This
question was not addressed.

Response:    Wells 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are now being rehabilitated.  Wells 1 and 2 will not be rehabilitated this summer.  However, all wells (including wells 1 and 2) currently produce water and are expected to continue to do so.

2.    If yes, how much from each well.  Staff's response only provided the "average" production expected for the entire existing well field.  We wish to know what well nos. 1, 2 and 6 are each expected to produce after rehabilitation.

Response:  As with any well, new or existing, production capacity cannot be guaranteed.  However, following rehabilitation, the City's existing wells are expected to be able to produce an average of 220 gallons per minute.

3.    What is total cost, including engineering and professional fees, equipment, materials, staff time, permit fees, annual maintenance for life of well, etc.  This question was not addressed.

Response:  Costs for specific wells have not been tracked on an individual basis.  However, it is estimated that periodic contract rehabilitation will cost between $2,500 and $3,750 per year per well.  This is based on rehabilitation costs of $15,000 per well with wells being rehabilitated every 4 to 6 years.

4.    What is expected total city mgd net treated water production (not capacity) upon completion of this stage?  The terms "capacity", "production", and "flow" appear to have ambiguous meanings, depending upon the context of the response.  We do not want to know how much raw water the treatment plant may be capable of processing.  We do not want to know how much water the city's reservoirs and pipes may hold at any given time.  We wish to know how much water will be coming out of the treatment plant and available for use by the public in one day.   In other words, if we were talking about a business and the income and expense, we want to know what the "net profit" for the day is.

Response: Actual net water production will be equal to that needed to satisfy system demand.  Maximum net production possible will be equal to the net capacity of the City's wells and treatment system (2 mgd).  Instantaneous peak demands exceeding 2 mgd (estimated maximum day demand) will be satisfied by drawing from system storage.

B.     Completion Date: Summer 2002 develop five new wells
Questions apply only to the Summer 2002 development phase.

5.    What is total cost, including engineering and professional fees, equipment, materials, staff time, permit fees, annual maintenance for life of well, etc.  This question was not addressed in the response.

Response:  Construction cost for the well field expansion (5 wells) is estimated to be $1.24 million.  This includes well construction, equipment, associated pipelines, electrical/control and contingency.  Assuming similar rehabilitation needs to that of the existing wells, the new wells could be expected to require rehabilitation once every 4 to 6 years.  Based on current rehabilitation costs (about $15,000 per well) this would result in a yearly rehabilitation cost of $2,500 to $3,750 per well.  Other O&M costs such as power, labor, chemicals, etc. are not included.

6.    What is expected total city mgd net treated water production (not capacity) upon completion of this stage?  Same comment as question 4. above.

Response:  Actual net water production will be equal to that needed to satisfy system demand.  Maximum net production possible will be equal to the net capacity of the City's wells and treatment system (3 mgd).  Instantaneous peak demands exceeding 3 mgd (estimated maximum day demand) will be satisfied by drawing from system storage.

C.   Completion Date: Summer 2008 develop new well field and water treatment plant
Questions apply only to the Summer 2008 development phase.

7.    How many new wells are planned?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  The number of wells needed to meet future demand depends on service population, per capita demand and groundwater hydrology.  Because these are not known at this time, the precise number of wells cannot be determined.  However, the 1998 Water Facilities Plan predicted that 14 new wells would be needed to meet a projected future demand of 7.7 mgd in the year 2020.  Regardless of the ultimate capacity requirement, it is expected that wells will be constructed in a phased approach to keep pace with demand and defer capital expenditures until they are needed.

8.    What is expected total city mgd net treated water production (not capacity) upon completion of this stage? Same comment as question 4. above.

Response:  Actual net water production will be equal to that needed to satisfy system demand.  Maximum net production possible will be equal to the net capacity of the City's wells and treatment system.  The 1998 Water Facilities Plan predicted that year 2020 demand would be 7.7 mgd.  However, exact future demand is unknown and prior to design of future water facilities demand projections will be reevaluated to identify changes in growth rate, per capita consumption, and service area.  Regardless of ultimate capacity requirements, it is expected that future water treatment facilities will be constructed in (a) phases to meet increasing demand.

Other Issues

Unmetered Water Use

The 1998 Water Facilities Report indicates that repairs of leaks might “slightly” reduce the current 15.1% “unmetered” water losses.  The report indicates (through their assumptions) that 10% is a more normal rate of loss for water systems.

9.    What steps is the city taking to reduce the 15.1% loss?  This question was not addressed.  It is apparent that the "ongoing maintenance program" mentioned by staff is not addressing the abnormal 5.1% loss.  Is the city planning on implementing any other measures?

Response:  In addition to leaks, the 15.1 percent "unmetered" loss includes hydrant flushing fire service, and unmetered service to some City facilities (which were metered subsequent to the 1998 report).  Apart from routine maintenance to locate and repair leaks, a systematic loss reduction program has not been undertaken.  However, information gathered at the recent Pacific Northwest Section meeting of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) indicates that 10 percent system loss is only a 'target" suggested by the AWWA.  Average (normal) loss rates typically range from about 10 to more than 40 percent.  Because the City's unmetered loss is at the low end of this range, it is expected that routine maintenance of the distribution system will be adequate in helping to further reduce unmetered losses.

Effect on Sewer Rates
The City's application for water rights to Water Resources Department states that the city is
expecting to reduce water consumption by 10%.

10.     What will happen to sewer rates and/or sewer related SDCs if the projected income from monthly sewer bills is reduced 10%?  This question was not adequately addressed.

Response: We believe this question relates to what effect a 10 percent reduction in water consumption would have on sewer rates and/or sewer related SDCs.  In answer to this question, there should be no change in sewer related income.  Residential sewer rates are not based on water usage and although commercial sewer rates are based in part on water usage, commercial irrigation is not included in this calculation.  Because the reduction in water consumption is expected to be primarily achieved through educed irrigation (residential and commercial), sewer revenues will not be reduced.

11.    The city finance director reported to the council that there was a certain percentage “surcharge (over and above the cost of the service) in sewer rates which was required by the lender - what was that percentage?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  It is usual for a bonding agency to require revenue to exceed operating costs by a percentage; in the case of the wastewater treatment plant 5%.  Because this additional percentage is only above operating costs, other system costs, including capital costs, and fund transfers, mean that the added percentage does not really mean additional costs to customers.

12.    If sewer revenues are lowered because of lower water usage, will user rates have to be increased in order to produce enough revenue to repay the loan? This question was not adequately addressed.

Response:  As stated in question 10, lower water usage should have no effect on sewer revenue.  However, in response to the question, if overall sewer revenue were reduced, clearly unit rates would have to be increased; however, since the unit costs would be increased to maintain revenue, over all costs to rate payers would not change substantially.  Sewer rates are developed to recover the cost of operating the sewage collection and treatment system and to repay debt.  Unless there is a reduction in the cost to operate the wastewater treatment system, the rates would have to be adjusted to match the revenue requirement.

Well Life Expectancy

13.    Given the gradual buildup of organic matter around the outside of the well, what is the average life expectancy of each new well, assuming adequate annual maintenance and repair?  This question was not adequately addressed.  The response that the new wells "should have life expectancies measured in terms of decades" does not adequately respond to the question.  For example, some of the wells that have "been in service for in excess of 20 and 30 years" are currently producing at such low levels that a reasonable person might question their cost effectiveness.

Response:  None of the City's existing wells has reached its useful life.  As stated previously, life expectancy of new wells is expected to be measured in terms of decades.  Wells that have currently been in service for 20 and 30 years have lost production capacity largely because of a buildup of oxidized iron.  Rehabilitation of these wells should restore much of the lost capacity.  The cost to obtain water from a well is related to the depth to the water level not the production capacity of the well.  In fact, because the oldest wells have been paid for, they are the most economical wells to operate.  Rehabilitation will increase the capacity of the well, but not reduce the cost to pump water from a given well.  Maintaining capacity will defer construction of new wells thus reducing debt service cost.

Property Acquisition/Use
During the work session of February 26, Mr. Lanfear stated that the city had “not started negotiations with the property owner”.  In an earlier city council (or perhaps planning commission) meeting, Mr. Lanfear mentioned a “quid pro quo” arrangement with Mr. Keubler who is currently requesting his 80-acre property be annexed.

14.    Which statement is accurate, and what are the details of the “arrangement”.  This question was not addressed.

Response:  Both statements were accurate when taken in their context.  Direct negotiations have not started with the property owner.  Discussions, and suggestion of the "quid pro quo" came from a local resident with a business relationship with Mr. Keubler.  The suggested "arrangement" was in reference to the originally recommended 100' strip, which would have been kept as an open space buffer between the golf course and a possible residential development.

Future Well Field
Apparently, the land directly west (and “downstream”) of the proposed “limited
industrial/commercial” on Hwy. 101 north of Munsel Creek Road is being proposed as a potential wellfield.

15.    What restrictions will the city be placing on those properties in order to protect the water quality of the city's wellfield? This question was not addressed.

Response:  A well field protection plan will be developed prior to construction of the City's future well field.  While State regulations require certain well head protection measures, the City will actively seek input from the public in developing the protection plan.

16.    State regulations only require that things such as buried fuel tanks, pressure sewer lines, etc. must be 100 feet away from a well.  Is the city going to require any additional protection to the city's water supply, over and above that required by state law? This question was not addressed.

Response:  As discussed above, the well field protection plan has not yet been developed.  Questions regarding the extent of that plan will be addressed as the protection plan is being developed.

Neglect of Existing Wellfield
The city's engineers pretty plainly indicated that the reason the city is facing a water supply problem is due, in very large part, to “neglect” and “reduced maintenance”.

17.     How many employees are paid by funds dedicated to the Water Fund?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  The water fund pays for 4.4 employees.  This is broken down as follows:  0.4 Public Works Director, 1 water treatment plant operator, 2 utility workers, 1 field assistant.

18.    How many hours of staff time have been dedicated to preventive maintenance of the wellheads? This question was not addressed.

Response:  The department does not maintain the detailed accounting of how many staff hours are devoted to each specific maintenance task.

19.    Why have the wells been “neglected” and why was the maintenance “reduced”?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  Deferring maintenance for rehabilitating wells was a decision made to meet budget constraints.

20.    Has the Public Works Director ever informed the city council of the consequences of this “neglect” and “reduced maintenance”? This question was not addressed.

Response:   The consequences of deferring well maintenance were discussed during budget preparation.  There was no formal discussion with the City Council.

21.    Has there ever been a regular wellhead maintenance schedule implemented? This question was not addressed.

Response:   Well maintenance is done as needed to maintain the capacity of the wells. Budget constraints influence the number of wells selected for maintenance.  Typically, the goal is to maintain each well about once every 4-6 years, as reduced well output indicates need.

22.    t one time, the Public Works Department requested the city pay for bottled water for the Public Works employees.  Is this still the case?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  Yes

23.    If so, how much does this cost the city and why are the people who are responsible for producing our drinking water using bottled water? This question was not addressed.

Response:  The cost for providing bottled water is $15 to $25 (dollars) per month.  This practice was started several years ago to provide cold water for the crew during summer projects.  OSHA does not allow water to be stored in bottles in a refrigerator.  The water dispenser also provides hot water to make tea or coffee.  Providing a water cooler for employees is not an unusual practice.

Changes in 1998 Water Facility Plan
The report recently distributed by the city's engineers indicate that the 1998 Water Facility Plan has been changed, in part, because “1998 Facility Plan assumed service to full urban growth boundary”.

24.     Is the city now planning to provide only enough water for residents inside existing city limits?  This question was not addressed.

Response:  The extent of the water service area will be determined by the City Council.  The Water Facilities Plan was based on providing capacity to keep pace with a 3.5 percent per year growth rate.  This growth rate accounts for both infill and expansion of the service area.  However, with Heceta Water District limited to 1 mgd from Clear Lake, planning to provide for service within the Urban Growth Boundary needs to continue.

25.    This question was posed by someone other than CFF:  Was the City Council told of the drop in well production prior to its decision to sever ties with Heceta Water District?  This question was not answered.  In addition, the purported "answer" to this question is inaccurate and misleading.  The City Council voted to end the intergovernmental agreement with Heceta Water District on April  3, 2000.  The Lane County Planning Commission did not even discuss limiting Heceta's water withdrawal from Clear Lake until August 2000.

Response:  Well production was not a factor to be considered during discussion of the City's relationship with Heceta Water District in the proposed joint water project.  It had become obvious to the City, through discussions with Federal Magistrate Coffin, property owners on Clear Lake, the City's attorneys, and County officials, that the facility of 4 to 4 mgd planned would not be built.  City opting out of the joint development agreement with HWD was an attempt to clear the way for HWD to build a smaller plant, hopefully of 2 mgd capacity.  HWD's subsequent agreement with Lane County to limit the plant to 1 mgd merely indicates the City had reasonable foresight.

• City's Second Response to CFF Questions
• CFF's Second Submission of Questions
• City's First Response to CFF Questions
• CFF Questions About City's Water Supply Plan
• North Florence Dunal Aquifer Groundwater Flow Map
• Coming Soon - City's $12 Million Well Development Plan