Loading...
20140210 Late CorrespondenceRPV SANITATION SEWERS: CONDITION Public Reports from County of Los Angeles: Department of Public Works REPORTS DATED 2/9/09, 8/5/09, 1/5/12, 6/5/13 SUMMARY: REPORTS TO RPV PUBLIC WORKS THROUGH JUNE, 2013 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES: "Should be included in your agency's Sewer System Management Plan as a reference in Chapt. 8.0 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan." 1. MAINTENANCE REPORTS (Covers Capacity, Blockage I Flow Restrictions, Infiltration) FEET MILES PERCENT REPORT DATE EST. TOTAL RPV: 735,699 139 100% 615/13 115112 815/09 2/9/09 Remaining Pipe Length CTTV'd * 501,463 95 68% 266,727 31,410 126,735 76,591 233,928 Pipe Condition % of Completed 1 . Minor /Excellent 197,381 37 39% 118,265 162 75,032 3,922 2. Min to Mod/Good 131,057 25 26% 34,034 27,710 22,560 46,753 3. Moderate/Fair 78,212 15 16% 45,430 1,147 21,737 9,898 4. Significant/Poor 88,648 17 18% 64,043 1,977 7,131 15,497 5. Most Significant/ 6,165 1 1% 4,955 414 275 521 Immediate Attention * LACDPW June 5, 2013 report lists RPV total CCTV'd as 502, 131 feet, 688 feet more than adding individual reports. EXPLANATION OF RATINGS: Sewer pipe considered at capacity when flow is 50% or greater of pipe diameter. Causes include line blockage, sag in the line, groundwater infiltration. Classifications of 3, 4 and 5 "have been incorporated into our enhanced maintenance cleaning schedule with corrective action taken as noted on the Quick Maintenance Rating Report Priority List (Enclosure 2)" 2. STRUCTURAL REPORTS (Estimated Time To Failure)* EST. TOTAL RPV: 735,699 139 100% 6/5/13 1/5112 815/09 219/09 Remaining Pipe Length CTTV'd 501,463 95 68% 266,727 31,410 126,735 76,591 233,928 Pipe Condition 1 . Minor /Excellent 332,484 2. Min to Mod/Good 51,820 3. Moderate/Fair 68,715 4. Significant/Poor 20,948 5. Most Significant/ 27,496 Immediate Attention % of Completed 63 66% 10 10% 13 14% 4 4% 5 5% 175,243 24,258 40,550 9,318 17,358 20,489 3,406 2,494 3,803 1,218 Total CTTV'D: 1/5/12 Rpt: 31,410 Total CTTV'D: 6/5/13 Rpt: 266,727 31,410 *"ESTIMATED TIME TO FAILURE" DEFINITIONS: 96,175 17,848 4,523 2,853 5,336 126,470 127,043 1 . Minor/Excellent: 2. Min to Mod/Good Unlikely in foreseeable future 20 years or more 3. Moderate/Fair 1 O to 20 years 4. Significant/Poor 5 to 10 years 5. Most Significant/ Has failed within 5 years 3. FUTURE PROJECT: (from LA DPW 6/5/13 letter to RPV DPW) 40,577 6,308 21,148 4,974 3,584 76,591 76,591 "The Sewer Condition Assessment Program will be performing future closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of the remaining sewer lines within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes according to the following schedule." Schedule Report # CTTV Feet % of Total Status 2011-2012 YOTV1112C 233,928 31.8 In progress,tobeavailableNLT6/5/14. REC EIV ED F R OM ....1a.~a.t-....1.111.~-----­ AND MADE A PART OF TH E COUN CIL MEETING OF_,_.ia:...--#-~--.... OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CARLA MORREALE, CITY CLERK Bob Nelson; CC Mtng Feb. 10,2014 GAIL FARBER, Di r er.tor June 5, 2013 Mr. Les M. Jones COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS "To Emich Lives Through Effective and Caring Service" 900 SOUTH FREMONT A VENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803-133 I Telephone; (626) 458-5100 http://dpw.lacounty.gov Interim Director of Public Works City of Rancho Palos Verdes 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Attention Mr. Ron Dragoo Dear Mr. Jones: CONSOLIDATED SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM REPORT PROJECT NO. YOTV091 OA ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO; PO BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALifORNIA 91802-1460 JN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE s M-1 This letter is to inform you that as part of our Sewer Condition Assessment Program, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District has completed the closed-circuit television inspection of 266,727 feet or 36 .2 percent of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' sewer system. The enclosed report outlines the structural and maintenance ratings of your system based on the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program's (PACP Version 6.0 .1) rating methodology. Included in the report are the following : • Condition Assessment Report • Project Overview Map (Enclosure 1) • Quick Maintenance Rating Report Priority List and Quick Maintenance Rating Map (Enclosure 2) • High Water Levels List and Map (Enclosure 2) • Infiltration List and Map (Enclosure 2) • Quick Structural Rating Report Priority List and Quick Structural Rating Map (Enclosure 3) • Infrastructure Inspection Reports for Grades 4 and 5 (Enclosure 4) Mr. Les M . Jones June 5 , 2013 Page2 The Condition Assessment Report provides details regarding the maintenance and structural condition of your City 's sewer mainlines. This information should be included in your agency's Sewer System Management Plan as a reference in Chapter 8.0 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan. The segments with critical maintenance issues have been cleaned and, where appropriate, incorporated into our enhanced maintenance schedule for continued monitoring. In addition, the segments with severe structural defects have either been repaired or will be scheduled for repair as part of our ongoing Accumulative Capital Outlay Program . If you have any questions regarding this report or the Condition Assessment Program, please contact Mr. Robert Swartz, Sewer Maintenance Division , at (626) 300-3367, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., or rswartz@dpw.lacounty .gov. Very truly yours , GAIL FARBER Director of Public Works Jr~~~#V- RAJESH PAYEL Assistant Deputy Director Sewer Maintenance Division fl t • I HK:sb ii~ H~MHOMEIGYo"og\M""'·'""'"""'ooc ~ Enc. be: RP, MM, RS, FV, File (Project No . YOTV0910A), SPINDLE CONDITION ASSESSMENT REPORT COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONSOLIDATED SEWER MAINTENANCE DISTRICT PROJECT NAME: PROJECT DATE: SUP. DISTRICT(s): Report By: INTRODUCTION YOTV0910A 07/10/2009 4 Hanna Kebede PROJECT MGR: CONTACT NO: MAP PAGE(S): Report Date: Eric Liu (626) 300-3369 1545, 1599, 1601, 1655 03/25/2013 As part of the Sewer Condition Assessment Program, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (District) has completed the closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of 266,727 feet or 36.2 percent of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes' (City) sewer system as part of this condition assessment report. To date, the District has completed the CCTV inspection of 502, 131 feet or 68.2 percent of the City's sewer system. In addition to this report, three previous condition assessment reports dated January 9, 2009, August 5, 2009, and January 5, 2012 have been provided to your City for your information. Copies of these reports can also be found at the District's website at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/smd/cctv/city/. The remaining 31.8 percent of the City's sewer system is part of a current CCTV inspection project. A report of the condition of these sewers shall be generated within 12 months from the completion of this current project. The Sewer Condition Assessment Program utilizes the Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP Version 6.0.1) Quick Rating methodology to rank the structural and maintenance condition of your system based on industry standards. PROJECT AREA AND DESCRIPTION Project No. YOTV091 OA included sewer lines located in the unincorporated County of Los Angeles and in the Cities of Agoura Hills, Rancho Palos Verdes, Rolling Hills Estates, and Westlake Village. Enclosed for your reference is an overview map of the project area within your City (Enclosure 1 ). DEFECT GRADE DESCRIPTION The Quick Rating indicates the number of occurrences for the highest severity grade for each pipe segment for either maintenance or structural defects. A grade of 1 indicates that a pipe segment is in excellent condition with minor defects while a grade of 5 indicates that a pipe segment may require immediate attention. A detailed breakdown of the five possible defect grades is as follows: Grade Defect Grade Description 1 : MINOR 2 : MINOR TO MODERATE Mt·PU .1,,_r1 4 : SIGNIFICAN T 5: MOST SIGNIFICANT MAINTENANCE REPORT Our inspection revealed that approximately 57 .1 percent of the system televised was free of blockages or restrictions that would impede sewer flows. However, the remaining 42.9 percent of the inspected pipe segments within the City had a PACP maintenance grade of 3, 4 or 5 as indicated in the Quick Maintenance Rating Table shown below. These segments have been incorporated into our enhanced maintenance cleaning schedule with corrective action taken as noted on the Quick Maintenance Rating Report Priority List (Enclosure 2). In addition, a color-coded map showing the quick maintenance rating for each pipe segment is provided in Enclosure 2. QUICK MAINTENANCE RATING TABLE 1: Minor DEFECT GRADE 2: Minor to Moderate 3: l\/lod era t e 4 : S ignifi c ant 5 : Most S ign ifi ca nt TOTAL Lateral Notices PIPE LENGTH (FT) 118,265 34,034 45,430 64,043 4,955 266,727 PERCENT TOTAL INSPECTED PIPE NO. SEGMENTS LENGTH 44.3 601 12.8 159 17.0 208 24.0 284 1.9 23 100.0 1275 Also included on the Quick Maintenance Rating Report Priority List are deficiencies discovered inside lateral connections to the mainline. The District does not maintain lateral lines. It is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain their respective lateral lines to facilitate the flow of wastewater from their property to the mainline. For this project, 492 notices will be sent to property owners in your City notifying them of the maintenance issues discovered in their lateral. A sample lateral notice letter is provided in Enclosure 2 for your reference . High Water Levels Our inspection revealed that approximately 96.5 percent of the system televised has adequate capacity. Approximately 3.5 percent of the segments inspected exhibited deficiencies associated with high water levels. Capacity of the sewer pipe can be determined by analyzing several PACP codes, including Water Level, Water Mark, and miscellaneous remarks, which indicated the camera was underwater or there were sags in the line. A sewer pipe can be considered at capacity when 50 percent of the diameter of sewer pipe is full of water. However, there are conditions in which the water level or water mark reached 50 percent or greater due to heavy flows in adjoining pipes, a temporary stoppage due to debris in the sewer lines, or a sag in the line. Therefore, additional review of all pipe segments with such high water level concerns was conducted to determine capacity issues, if any. All sewer pipes where Water Level, Water Mark, and miscellaneous remarks of camera underwater or sags in the line are at or above 50 percent capacity, have been listed and analyzed on the High Water Level table in Enclosure 2. The nature of these high water level conditions is also summarized on this table. Infiltration Our inspection revealed that approximately 0.3 percent of the system included in this project has infiltration within the pipe segment. Infiltration is the ingress of groundwater into the sewers through a defect or porous area of the pipe wall. All sewer pipes where infiltration was found are listed on the Infiltration Table (Enclosure 2). This table also provides the proposed corrective action for these impacted sewer segments. If a corrective method is proposed, the remediation will be scheduled in the next 24 months as part of the ongoing Accumulative Capital Outlay Project. A map showing the sewer lines with high water levels and infiltration is provided in Enclosure 2. STRUCTURAL REPORT Our inspection revealed that approximately 90 percent of the inspected pipe segments within the City were free of severe structural defects. However, the remaining 10 percent of the inspected pipe segments had a PACP structural grade of 4 and 5 as indicated in the Quick Structural Rating Table shown below. These segments have been placed on a priority list based on the severity and need for action. For Items 1 through 119 in the Quick Structural Rating Report Priority List (Enclosure 3), which require a corrective action, the proposed repair or replacement will be scheduled in the next 24 months as part of the ongoing Accumulative Capital Outlay Project. A color- coded map showing the Quick Structural Rating for each pipe segment is located in Enclosure 3. Copies of the actual inspection report for these 119 segments are included in Enclosure 4. QUICK STRUCTURAL RATING TABLE 1: Minor DEFECT GRADE 2: Minor to Moderate J: Moderate 4: Significant 5: Most Significant TOTAL FUTURE PROJECTS PIPE LENGTH {FT) 175,243 24,258 40,550 9,318 17,358 266,727 PERCENT TOTAL INSPECTED PIPE NO. SEGMENTS LENGTH 65.7 880 9.1 107 15.2 169 3.5 41 6.5 78 100.0 1275 The Sewer Condition Assessment Program will be performing future closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection of the remaining sewer lines within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes according to the following schedule. FISCAL PROJECT LENGTH PERCENTAGE STATUS YEAR NAME (FT) OF SYSTEM 2005-2006 YOTV0506F 76,591 10.4 COMPLETED 2006-2007 YOTV0607D 127,043 17.3 COMPLETED 2008-2009 YOTV0809C 31,410 4.3 COMPLETED 2009-2010 YOTV0910A 266,727 36.2 COMPLETED 2011-2012 YOTV1112C 233,928 31.8 IN PROGRESS TOTAL 735,699 100.0 ----,....-- ' .. ~ £, ~r · -§, .... :: ~-~' $ 2 1 . 2!3 3 ~-~ ~ ~--!!! 3 I ~~ r "~ '-~ fl @ _ __,. I( •1 ~11/ng Hills ~~iN-nm-.-•• --1~1.)~-id..;:;~ q ~-"" ... Rancho Palos Verdes '-) S-1600 ~ \ .. / <!', ~~-~~ \ \_, Palos Verdes f OVERVIEW MAP CCTV PROJECT YOTV0910A Rancho Palos Verdes & 450 900 1,350 Feet Legend --SMD Sanitary Sewers SMD Manholes 0 Other Manhole Type o Standard 6 DROP D Shallow (j Trap ® Siphon II SMD Pump Stations ~ SMD Treatment Plants Maintained by Others: -Trunk Sewerlines - - -Non SMD Sankary Sewera • Non SMD Maintained MH D SMD Operations Mapa c:::J YOTV091 OA ht-.•~ll!'ll .. ~ ............. .... ~~~~~ 1a""""-eo,,,,, ..... -..~.,....., ibl' .... .,.._,....,_~Nl' .. ~"'tl'!lt -.&.~~l!I W.fll.IOlt ......... ... ........ "" ..... .,..,..,..,,.. ..... ~ .. ~.,..,.."'°-~#IC.~ ·~~_,,_..._.....,._ .a,) • ...,.,..,, MARCH 2013 1,800 :J v--I I _ -.l ~ '\. I---·--'-I _J I /,,; I ~ ' I ·~ .... 1-~~n --I OVERVIEW MAP CCTV PROJECT .-I YOTV0910A ~-1 ~ ;; or"'~• • Rancho Palos Verdes $ . ll \. J.-:;;.~-l&•;Bl' 15'1 w~1-.. <,922 1 ·-~· U~ i3.,i',p3 150~' 71 ~ ~ ' I W~A.V "- ,• ~l "'· ti ~b 2 1113 ~ S1 -~-'" -'- 1-t.1> I : . . 21s21• e<> 9i w""""""' ~1l I ;--,110.J... •. I,. --~5?8 _,.-... . ~ ~ __.,r-...,....-~ 1 ...._ -~----·-·--------------~ ~---· ----····--_, ---· -· =I 630 1,260 1,890 2,520 :II Feel Legend --SMD Sanitary Sewers SMD Manholes @ Other Manhole Type O Slandard t. DROP D Shallow 0 Trap ® Siphon II SMD Pump Slations ~ SMD Treatment Plants Maintained by Others: -Trunk Sewarllnes - - -Non SMD Sanitary Sewers • Non SMC Maintained MH c:J SMD Operations Maps CJ YOTV0910A fl'i.ilrtw#llo~..,. ... ,,_.~-t!I • i.c.~~.s..;..,..__~ w."""-~#;111'1111~ ...... ""._..., -""'~""'°'_.,"~"'11'11 -a..Clni~ ......... ;nN;iCM ... -.. .. ~"'°"' ... n..h&....-~ ~ ...... ~ ~~ s ~ I""'~ z-~•CIR ,. W'4THsr 'i:~I I .. ...,._ Rancho Palos Verdes ~'-~-<i..t.t -~ ~1 ~ ~~'--e'-~', '..J.$-~ =::..~~~--= 4; ! _,I .f:,/ ' ' I ;.J • ~ ........ ~ ~ ~ l -- i,-•f'--"" • ' " A'S(.. I ~ ,· ----'-=-°;' ~ ~!!.__ .Joi'~ MARCH 2013 ·! ~\ -1545 ~ ~\ L} ~) g1 Iii f l -....., ,202 '-272 ......_ 200 """" ,/ 0--.-_,}!1- 199 ,170 o , ...... 269 263 0 .---~ •litl2 0 H I ll s Es t ates 1265 205 ~ 268 0 20s /!.0 261 I c '/o ?s1 I ~ '1260 j l 0 "'9 I //1030 --~~ \ Ranch 285 0 \ \ ~84 [ I ~ I., \l! 283 0 I ENCLOSURE 2 CCTV PROJECT YOTV0910A Rancho Palos Verdes QUICK MAINTENANCE RATING (QMR) 8 & 210 420 630 Feet Legend SMD Sanitary Sewers QMR --1:MlNOA --2' MINOR TO MODERATE -3: MODERATI! --4; SIGNIFICANT --5; MOST SIGN IFICANT SMD Manholes c °""'' M•nholo Type 0 $W\dArd 6 DROP Ci Shlollow 0 Trop ® Slpllo<o Iii SMO Pilmp !!lotiofto ~ SMO T,..lmtnl Plants Maintained by Othens : -.-Trunk Sowlf1ine1 840 ---Non SMD S8nit8.t)' SClw<HS • Non SMD Ma!rUa!Md MH D SMD Operallons Maps CJvoTV0910A Thill map flinlllOO.donlylorlri •mtl ~lorlll~O. l.otMgelHCountyS-.r lileln ..... l'CllDiltrlda. Lo1 MglnCO!dt~pr .. tl)i~l&m.Syt~ k>r•ny l n11U:~""*l'!mey ~pr111Mllntil JNP.0&11con1a1Md 1n1t>a m1p apnlduc9d1n wt.ole orperlhlllnll•Th;lmulJ'Ol..M!IPlll>diQl.8! '911bH9 Tllt.rr.pW~l'IMIWld ~ wlhpel1Tll•on~.~TllOlllll1llfc.Mlopl'9. All r!ghb reMl\'9d MARCH2013 NO. QMR STARTMH ENDMH STREET 295 4100 1654-0133 1654-0132 EASEMENT 296 4100 1601-0103 1601-0102 EASEMENT 297 4100 1601-0094 1601-0093 SEARAVEN DR 298 4100 1601-0074 1601-0081 EASEMENT 299 4100 1601-0001 1601-0002 25TH ST 300 4100 1546-0277 1545-PUMP EASEMENT 301 4100 1546-0267 1546-0266 EASEMENT 302 4100 1546-0182 1546-0112 EASEMENT 303 4100 1546-0170 1546-0173 EASEMENT 304 4100 1546-0091 1546-0092 HAWTHORNE BV 305 4100 1546-0022 1546-0021 EASEMENT 306 4100 1546-0010 1546-0009 EASEMENT 307 4100 1545-0310 1545-0309 WHITLEY COLLINS DR 308 3Q2J 1655-0020 1655-0021 25TH ST 309 3C2D 1545-0990 1545-0991 SANTA CATALINA DR 310 3C2A 1655-0068 1655-0069 EASEMENT 311 3C2A 1655-0068 1655-0059 EASEMENT 312 3C21 1545-0072 1545-0071 EASEMENT 313 3829 1654-0172 1654-0171 ALLEY 314 3900 1655-0021 1655-0022 25TH ST 315 3822 1654-0171 1654-0145 ALLEY 316 372C 1654-0325 1654-0328 MIRALESTE DR 317 3621 1601-0135 1601-0134 CONQUEROR DR 318 3621 1600-0004 1600-0003 EASEMENT 319 3522 1600-0147 1600-0134 HIGHTIDE DR 320 3521 1546-0104 1546-0105 MARNE DR 321 3515 1546-0238 1546-0292 ALLEY 322 3420 1655-0058 1655-0059 WESTERN AV 323 342A 1654-0328 1654-0329 MIRALESTE DR 324 3422 1600-0129 160().0130 PIRATE DR 325 3422 1546-0194 1546-0193 ARROWROOT LN 326 3421 1600-0016 1600-0015 DAUNTLESS DR 327 3421 1599-0162 1599-0114 EASEMENT 328 332A 1601-0092 1601-0093 SEARAVEN DR 329 3321 1601-0106 1601-0105 VIG I LANCE DR 330 3321 1546-0218 1546-0217 PACKET RD 331 3321 1546-0212 1546-0211 BARKENTINE RD 332 3319 1546-0052 1546-0053 EASEMENT 333 331G 1546-0212 1546-0213 BARKENTINE RD 334 3316 1601-0153 1601-0152 PALOS VERDES DRS 335 3312 1546-0230 1546-0247 EASEMENT 336 322E 1654-0163 1654-0164 MIRALESTE DR ENCLOSURE 2 QUICK MAINTENANCE RATING REPORT PRIORITY LIST RANCHO PALOS VERDES (YOTV0910A) as of07/10/09 OBSERVATION Roots Ball Lateral:l05' Alignment Up: 90% Roots Ball Lateral:1891 Alignment Down: 50% Water Mark 65%: 45 1 Roots Medium Barrel: O' Roots Ball Connection:109'; Roots Ball Lateral: 109' Alignment Up: 95% Roots Roots Ball Connectlon:285'; Roots Ball Lateral: 285' Roots Ball Joint : 21 Alignment Down: 90% Roots Ball Connection:lOO'; Roots Ball Lateral: 100' Deposits lngressed Other :44'-350' Water Level Sag,40 % : 2'-80' Water Level Sag,40 % : 95'-180' Water Level Sag.40 % : 95'-180' Roots Medium Joint: 60'-195' Water Level Sag, 40 %: 50'-115' Water Level Sag, 50 %: 270'-308' Water Level Sag,35 %: 0'-33' Water Level Sag 40 %:232'-280'; Roots Medium Lateral: 216' Roots Medium Joint; Roots Medium Lateral: 132' Roots Medium Connection & Joint; Roots Medium Lateral: 126' Roots Medium Joint; Roots Medium Lateral: 79' Obstacle Construction Debris & Roots Medium Joint Roots Medium Joint:74'-951 Water Level Sag. 35 %: 295'-312' Water Level Sag1 35 %: 0'-15' Roots Medium Joint Roots Medium Connection; Roots Medium Lateral: 159', 165' & 271' Roots Medium Joint Roots Medium Connection & Joint Roots Medium Lateral: 87' 1125' & 186' Roots Medium Joint: 35' & Roots Medium Lateral: 71' & 99' Roots Medium Lateral: 26' 1 104' & 224' Roots Medium Joint i Roots Medium Lateral: 30' &108' Roots Medium Joint Obstacle Construction Debris inside MH & Roots Medium Lateral: 36' & 150' Roots Medium Joint; Roots Medium Lateral: 29' Roots Medium Joint Water Level Sag. 45 % :335'-343' 8of13 CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN COMPLETED DATE lateral notice wlll be sent to property owner. N/A No action needed. N/A l ateral notice will be sent to property owner. N/A No action needed. N/A No action needed_ N/A Hydrojet 08/02/2012 Hydrojet 08/02/2012 No action needed. N/A Hydro jet 10/25/2011 Rodded & Hydrojet 10/18/2011 Hydro jet 10/25/2011 No action needed. N/A Hydro jet 08/05/2011 Hydrojet 09/28/2011 Hydrojet 11/21/2011 Hydrojet 08/12/2011 Hydrojet 08/12/2011 Hydrojet 09/28/2011 Hydrojet 08/26/2011 Hydrojet 09/28/2011 Hydrojet 08/27/2011 Hydro jet 08/30/2011 Rodded & HydroJet 08/10/2011 Hydro jet 08(17/2012 Hydrojet 08/18/2011 Rodded & Hydrojet 10/18/2011 Hydrojet 10/19/2011 Hydrojet 08/12/2011 Hydrojet 08/30/2011 Hydrojet 08/18/2011 Hydro jet 10/20/2011 Hydro jet 10/20/2011 Hydrojet 08/19/2011 Lateral notice will be sent to property owner. N/A Rodded & Hydrojet 08/10/2011 Lateral notice will be sent to property owner. N/A Hydrojet 10/19/2011 Hydrojet 10/28/2011 Hvdrojet 10/19/2011 Hydro jet 08/25/2011 Hydrojet 10/19/2011 Hydrojet 08/11/2011 ........ \ ( ~~,;- ' \ ~~ L ) r l 'i' , ,,y '----------- (----~", \~ l ~ "\ \ ~ ,, \ .~ i ... !i 21 ENCLOSURE 3 CCTV PROJECT YOTV0910A Rancho Palos Verdes QUICK STRUCTURAL RATING (QSR) & 440 660 880 Feet Legend SMC Sanitary Sewers QSR --t MINOfl --2< MlNOR TO MOO.:RATE --3' MOOERAJ E --41 S IGN lf iCAm --5! MOSTSIGN lflCAHT SMC Manhole$ 0 Otl<l>C Manhole Type o sloooo.i t.. CROP t:J Sbo.- 0 T"'ll @ S oho(! 1i31 SMC PUfnP Slolicm !!!! WO Tnaalmut Platmi Ma i nlll inod by Others: -n u n!!. Sftwarlinu --NonSMDS.,,ILol)'-.,. o NO(' SMD Maln taUiod "°" D SMD 0!"''"tlo ns Mopo VOTV0910A ~""""-~"°"-........ ~-­.... ~~~~-..,,_ :...:r:-=::~1!::==-..,,. .. ,.._b T--~ ----.1'1!1J~·~----­... ~r:rMllNl.·I,_. ..... ...._ llO"*""~ MARCH20 13 S-1491 .t ,,,. #;' <?"'~;/!. I I " ~ 4 . .,. \ ~ Rancho Palos Verdes ~~ ~ '\ I ~ ~ ,,--~~ f ) l l ~'!!_ ,J /( ~ ~ ,. ~J ~~ ·~~t' / I I 1;'J'-. v 0 .!' '6..-_, ~J\ ) ~,__~~ ~; ~o~~ -· i~,· ~I -:J S-1600 ~~ ENCLOSURE 2 CCTV PRO.JECT YOTV0910A Rancho Pa.los Verdes HIGH WATER LEVEL AND INFILTRATION & ~ 88C 1,320 1,760 M I FHI Legend --HIGH WATER LEVELS --INFILTRATION SMD Manholes O Other Manhole Type o Standard A OROF' D Shallow () Trap 0 Siphon SMD l'ump Stations !!!! SMD Treatment Plants Maintained by Others: -Trunk Sewe lfones ----Non SMD Sari181y Sewers • Non SMD Maintained MH ~I ~ ~~ ~B =~-f'!: ~ m-•-.O.donlyforlntlm9lo1Mnti<in1Clf~ .! Lo1AngefHCOL>ntyStw11rMlllrrt1r11nCl90fd1ctl. I I Lo1Mll t•Coul1t)'sitpr•M)'d1KIMn•.,Y~ • forany lnm::11'110lmwhlchrM)'ti.pr .. 1111'11nTtn ' mePDlllBc;c nminedlnthlsm11plll!Rldumdln _.-' wtD11orpar\lrolrllflllTlr>rn •Brct.M~dlgbl ' datll-Thl1m1plllaipyrigl\t.d ,llnd"'~ / ...6 wll\penniu.IDn~byThoma1B""' ~. _.,. ,_ All ngt'& lllMMKI ~~\ MARCH2013 CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 10, 2014 ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA** Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented for tonight's meeting: Item No. Description of Material 1 Magis Advisors Powerpoint Presentation Respectfu~ubmitted, /d., llL,tlj LilJd!A ~J!1AL££e -< Carla Morreale W:\AGENDA\2014 Additions Revisions to agendas\20140210 additions revisions to agenda.doc CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING/FINANCING UPDATE Infrastructure Management Workshop February 10, 2014 j I IS public fi.nan.ce consulting CONTEXT FOR THIS DISCUSSION • Five years prior to the enactment of Proposition 13. • Result is a property tax base that has been constrained mostly to re- assessments arising from turnover. • Major portions of infrastructure were installed at time of development, majority in the 1960s & 1970s. February 10, 2014 • Part of the City's endearing charm! • But, presents some challenges ... • Small commercial tax base. • Heavy reliance on a few major taxpayers (such as TOT from the Terranea Resort) for "own source" revenues. © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved • Overall physical condition now better known, but remaining life is uncertain. • Replacement costs unknown, but are undoubtedly substantial. • Gross book value of fixed assets is presently at ~ $157 million. • Majority is roadways (~ 58% of total), followed by sewers (~ 16%). 1 HISTORICAL COST & DISTRIBUTION OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE L 0916 G 12~~~ Roadways {58%) {10-30 year life) $ 90.7 min (GROSS BOOK VALUE = $158 MLN) Sewers (16%) {30-50 year life) $ 26.0 min Storm Drains (16%) {25-100 year life) $ 24.5 min REPLACEMENT COSTS UNKNOWN OR NOT YET MEASURED Bldgs &Park Improvements (10%) (25-50 year life) $16.4 min February 10, 2014 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 2 IS THERE A REPLACEMENT ICEBERG AHEAD? February 10, 2014 ~ $14.6 million, funded, with restricted monies over 5 years ... $30.6 million, funded with CIP Reserve and assumed future General Fund support from TOT over 5 years. -----,~-:=_-=~ ,. $31.9 million to $44.0 million, quantified, but unfunded. As much as $331 million, using inflation measures, unquantified and unfunded. (Note that even a simple weighted cost estimating method indicates $300 million, as discussed next.) Note: Data is based on 2013 GIP. © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 3 ESTIMATING REPLACEMENT COSTS ---) --------_ ... -------------.. -----~~=:==-----------------------) from 1913 1923 1933 1943 1953 1963 1973 1983 1993 2003 2013 2013 February 10, 2014 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 4 AN EXAMPLE OF RESERVE ACCUMULATION ... 1. Assume that the City is contributing about $3.5 million annually to its capital reserves; and, 2. The future contributions will rise by 3% per year; and, 3. The forecast "horizon 11 is 10 years. 4. By the end of the 10- yea r period, the annual contributions will be $4.6 million. 5. Let1s also assume that those contributions are earning 4% interest while held pending expenditure on capital projects February 10, 2014 $4.8 $4.6 $4.4 $4.2 $4.0 $3.8 $3.6 $3.4 $3.2 $3.0 Contributions (millions of$} Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 5 ... AND THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FROM IT ... 1. Assume that the infrastructure needs really are $331 million; and, 2. The City wishes to fund the replacement costs over thirty years; then, 3. Funding the /{iceberg" will cost $11.0 million per year (on average) over the 30-year period. 4. If the pattern of expenditures looks like the graphic, then the results would be .... February 10, 2014 $3.5 Capital Expenditures or Replacements (millions of$) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 6 ... RESERVES EXHAUSTED BY THE SEVENTH YEAR 1. The reserves will not be enough to meet the demands by the seventh year of the forecast period. 2. Available funding will be $34 million less than needed over the period. February 10, 2014 $31.2 $32 ·2 $29.3 Reserve Balance (millions of$) · ' ${21.6) _ $(29.2) ${34.4) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 7 DEBT IS USED TO SMOOTH THE PEAKS ... The "ideal" use of debt is to smooth out the peaks in the expenditure needs. Debt is one way to align the 11funding" of large projects over time. February 10, 2014 Capital Expenditures or Replacements (millions of$) .. $12.0 $22.0 "'~~·';0"~ -~ = -· ··=· ->~ •.• $12.0 $8.5 "--·""·•~i;;.,;;~i•$9.8 $7.7 $3.9 $3.5 Yearl Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 Year10 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 8 CURRENT CAPITAL FUNDING PATTERNS COMPARED ... Buildings Parks Trails Storm Drains Sewer <1% General Fund Restricted Funds Abalone Cove ROW/Traffic Landslide Sewer This chart displays the relationship between what the City has funded over the past five fiscal years (showing sources of that funding) to the theoretical "spend" of $11.0 million per year that might be required to replace the infrastructure. February 10, 2014 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 9 BY IMPLEMENTING THE IMP, THE CITY CAN BETTER IDENTIFY LONG-TERM REQUIREMENTS AND METHODICALLY DEVELOP THE RESOURCES TO MATCH Example: Sanitary Sewer System Pipe ... (-~·: ,,'fl'-"·,·~· :.1;'\,"'w __ ,_·,, {"' :;·fl ·:J.i"'a,",.., ,._·,,,,.J (,~:/, ··'@'·7;'!'.,:::' .. ..,· +t~~,vw' "·"''·<}',;;:·' .. ·.~",'!1 ~,~/.,," re{,,~~"· 1 .~~·· ·~,,--,,,·w ,;:;·«,,,& a .··~·I County Response February 10, 2014 Careful Planning TOT·· © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved S . u··' F ,_,., ewer ser ee •.• 10 AN ITERATIVE PROCESS, WHICH INTEGRATES THE REPORT CARD, THE IMP, FUNDING PLAN, RESERVE LEVELS, AND ANY BORROWING DECISIONS February 10, 2014 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 11 TAKEAWAYS The "report card" indicates "as is" condition; this enables learning about the timing and amount of replacement costs for infrastructure assets. The development of the IMP is a logical "next step" and will facilitate better decision making. If the cost estimates shown in this presentation are correct, then the existing reserves and funding of those reserves may be insufficient for the City's needs. Debt, if used, can be one method to "smooth" expenditures over time; dedicated revenue sources may be another. With a report card, the IMP, a funding plan, and a thoughtful debt policy, the City will have a much better sense of how much (and when) additional funding and/or debt will be needed. February 10, 2014 © 2014 Magis Advisors, Inc. All rights reserved 12