PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES Fair Oaks Sewer - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES

Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District

Garfield Charter School 3600 Middlefield Road North Fair Oaks May 29, 2007 7:00 P.M.

County of San Mateo Department of Public Works

OVERVI EW OF TONI GHT’S MEETI NG:

• District Information
• District Funding
• Elements of the Sewer Service Charge Rates
• In District Costs
• Out of District Costs
• Minimum Fund Reserve Targets
• Proposed Rates
• Rate Setting Timeline
• Questions and Comments

FOSMD: Pipes ~ 81 Miles ERU – 12,597 ELHSMD:

Pipes ~ 29 Miles ERU – 1,657

CSCSD:

Pipes ~ 19 Miles ERU – 1,501

BHSMD:

Pipes ~ 7 Miles ERU - 426

DCSD:

Pipes ~ 4 Miles ERU - 293

HI SMD:

Pipes ~ 1 Mile ERU - 234

OKSMD:

Pipes ~ 2 Miles ERU - 118

KSSMD:

Pipes ~ 0.8 Miles ERU - 74

SHCSD:

Pipes ~ 2 Miles ERU - 58

ESMD:

Pipes ~ 0.3 Miles ERU - 18

DI STRI CT BOUNDARY MAP:

District Boundary

Sewage Flows Through City of Redwood City to the South Bayside System Authority (SBSA) Treatment Plant in Redwood Shores For Treatment

Redwood Shores Redwood City Woodside Redwood City Atherton Atherton North Fair Oaks

SEWER/ SANI TATI ON DI STRI CTS I N COUNTY GOVERNMENT:

EACH DISTRICT IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY WITH ITS OWN SEPARATE BUDGET

• Each District’s Governing Board is the Board of Supervisors
• The District receives Sewer Service Charges and limited

property taxes within the District boundaries to fund sewer service

• The Sewer Service Charges are a Fee For Service, Not a Tax
• The District collects Sewer Service Charges on the Tax Bill

because it is least costly way to collect the fee

WHERE DOES MY PROPERTY TAX MONEY GO?

FOSMD Sample Property Tax Allocation (TRA 073-026)

Fair Oaks SMD 1.35% Air Quality Mngmnt 0.24% General County Tax 26.81% Mid Penn ROSD 2.08% SU High School 17.67% County Harbor District 0.40% County Education Tax 3.99% Sequoia Hospital Dist 1.66% Mosquito Abatement 0.22% SM Junior High School 7.67% County Fire Protection 7.27% RWC Elem School 26.74% Free Library 3.91%

DI STRI CT SPECI FI C STATI STI CS:

District Miles of Pipe Percentage in Easements Percentage in Streets Fair Oaks SMD 81.3 17.30% 82.70%

*Age based on District formation date ** Based on 2006-07 SSC Report

District Age (yrs)* Number of Connections** Equivalent Residential Units** Downstream Transport Agency Treatment Facility Fair Oaks SMD 77 7,345 12,597 City of Redwood City SBSA

ORGANI ZATI ONAL STRUCTURE OF DI STRI CTS:

BURLINGAME HILLS SMD CRYSTAL SPRINGS CSD DEVONSHIRE CSD EDGEWOOD SMD EMERALD LAKE HEIGHTS SMD FAIR OAKS SMD HARBOR INDUSTRIAL SMD KENSINGTON SQUARE SMD OAK KNOLL SMD SCENIC HEIGHTS CSD UTILITIES-FLOOD CONTROL-WATERSHED PROTECTION SECTION Ann M. Stillman, Principal Civil Engineer DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS James C. Porter, Director COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

HOW DOES A SEWER SYSTEM WORK?

Image Source: Pixel-Gym

Each District Relies On Downstream Agencies To Transport The District Collected Sewage To The Treatment Plant

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

IN DISTRICT COSTS:

• Operation and Maintenance
• Regulation Compliance
• District Capital Improvement Projects

OUT OF DISTRICT COSTS:

• Sewage Transport and Treatment
• Downstream Agency Capital Improvement Projects

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District FY 07-08 Proposed Balanced Budget Rate of $400 Per ERU

O&M 20.6% Treatment 34.2% Fund Reserve * 19.2% District CIP 12.7% Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & Interest) 7.0% Regulations 6.3%

* Contributes to Fund Reserve

In District

DI STRI CT EXPENDI TURE COMPARI SON

Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District Fiscal Year 2005-06 and 2007-08 Expenditure Comparison

$- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 2005-06 2007-08 Fiscal Year Expenditure ($) District CIP Treatment Regulations O&M

• ROUTINE AND PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
• REPAIR OF DAMAGED PIPES
• EMERGENCY RESPONSE
• CUSTOMER ASISTANCE
• DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION

OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE:

EMERGENCY RESPONSE 24 HOURS A DAY, 7 DAYS A WEEK

OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE:

Image Source: City of Irving, Texas

ANTICIPATED EXPENDITURES FOR FUTURE OPERATION & MAINTENANCE BASED ON 5-YEAR HISTORICAL COSTS

• 4% annual increase for inflation
• 3% O&M contingency to account for unanticipated expenses

OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE:

THE DISTRICTS ARE REGULATED BY:

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

The Regional Water Quality Control Board The State Water Resources Control Board The State Porter-Cologne Act The Federal Clean Water Act

GOAL TO ELIMINATE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS (SSO)

What is a SSO?

• Raw Sewage Leaves the Pipe and Flows on the Ground Surface
• Sewage, if Not Captured, Can Reach Storm Drains, Creeks, Lakes, the

Bay, and Ocean

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

SSO from Manhole SSO from Manhole Near Creek SSO from Cleanout

WHAT CAUSES A SSO? Blockages, breaks, and Infiltration & Inflow in the sewer pipe will cause a SSO.

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO ELIMINATE SSOs? UNTREATED SEWAGE IS

A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, ANIMALS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

WHY I S I T I MPORTANT TO ELI MI NATE SSOs? AGENCIES HAVE

BEEN LEVIED STIFF PENALTIES OR PAID LARGE SETTLEMENTS IN LAWSUITS FOR SSOs.

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

Notice of Violation & Intent Notice of Violation & Intent to File Suit (60 to File Suit (60-

• Day Notice)

Day Notice)

Plaintiffs Baykeeper, West County Toxic Coalition Lawyers for Clean Water Environmental Advocates vs. Defendants West County Wastewater District (WCWD) City of Richmond Veolia Water NA Downey Brand LLP

Settlement Agreement Fees Settlement Agreement Fees

WCWD/Richmond/Veolia WCWD/Richmond/Veolia

• WCA NPDES Effluent Limit Violations
• SEP Rose Foundation $80,000
• Attorneys Fees (Plaintiff) $57,000
• Collection System Settlement Fees
• Attorneys Fees (Plaintiff) - $538,000
• Oversight Cost (Plaintiff) - $100,000
• Attorneys Fees (Defendants) - $300,000
• Staff Resources/In-house Counsel - $50,000
• Settlement Agreement was reached in 15 months

Collection System Settlement Agreement Collection System Settlement Agreement

WCWD WCWD

• Collection System Capital Improvement Program
• Commit $5M over 10 years
• System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP)
• Revise within 18 months
• Update 2015
• CCTV-Sewer Condition Grading
• Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning Schedule
• <12” once every 4 years
• >12” once every 10 years
• Design for 5 year-24/hr Storm Event
• Continue FOG Program - Increase FSE Inspections
• Attain SSO Reduction Goals

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board imposed a $516,000 fine to the City of South San Francisco in 2006 for sewer overflows and a $626,000 administrative civil liability to the City and County of San Francisco in an impending order.

Fines!!!

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE: What are the Districts required to do?

Develop Sewer System Management Plans (SSMP) Report all SSOs

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE: Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Goals:

Maintaining or improving the condition of collection systems to provide reliable service in the future Cost-effectively minimizing infiltration/inflow (I&I) and providing adequate sewer capacity for wet weather flows Minimizing the number and impact of SSOs

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

What are the elements of a SSMP and when do they need to be completed by?

Aug 31 2006

Legal authority for permitting flows into the system, I&I control and enforcement of proper design, installation, testing standards and inspection requirements for new and rehabilitated sewers Measures and activities to maintain the wastewater collection system Design and construction standards Collection system management goals Organization of personnel, chain of command, and communications Overflow emergency response plan Fat, Oils and Grease (FOG) control program

Aug 31 2007

Capacity Management Monitoring plan for SSMP program effectiveness Periodic SSMP Audits, periodic SSMP updates, and implementation of program Communication Program

Aug 31 2008

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

What SSMP Elements were factored into the rates?

• Condition Assessment through Closed Circuit Television Inspection

(CCTV) of pipes

• 1/6 of system per year
• Equipment Upgrades

Replacing, upgrading, or purchasing equipment for effective maintenance of sewer system

• Spot Repairs

Repairing sections of pipe based on CCTV findings Repair 2% of televised pipe system per year

Regulatory Reporting and Requirements

Costs associated with required reporting and SSMP development

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

High priority CIPs identified in Sewer Master Plans completed in 1999 and 2000

• Improvements recommended based on
• Lack of capacity in pipe – Priority 1
• Excessive maintenance costs – Priority 2
• Damaged pipes – Priority 3

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

What was recommended in my District?

District CIP Completed

Priority Number

• f Projects

Actual Cost

Priority 1 - Capacity 10 $ 6,309,000

District CIP Identified in Sewer Master Plan

Priority Number of Projects Identified Length of Pipe to be Upgraded Estimated Construction Cost

Priority 1 – Capacity 14 ~ 25,830’ $9,922,396 Priority 2 – Maintenance

• Priority 3 – Structural

11 ~ 21,500’ $3,880,418 Totals 25 47,330 ft. * $13,802,814 **

** Estimated cost includes design, administration, and inspection

* CIP Lengths Identified Represent Approximately 11% of District’s Total Length of Sewer Mains (429,407 feet).

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

Recommended and completed CIP in District:

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

Completed

Recommended and completed CIP in District:

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

What projects still need to be completed?

** Estimated cost includes design, administration, and inspection

* Remaining CIP Lengths Represent Approximately 6.3% of District’s Total Length of Sewer Mains (429,407 feet).

Remaining District CIP

Priority Number of Projects Length of Pipe to be Upgraded Estimated Construction Cost

Priority 1 – Capacity 4 ~ 5,570’ $1,312,625 Priority 2 – Maintenance

• Priority 3 – Structural

11 ~ 21,500’ $ 3,880,418 Totals 15 27,070 ft. * $5,193,043 **

DI STRI CT CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS (CI P):

How were the CIP costs factored into the rates?

Costs for CIPs were spread over 10 years 5% contingency applied for capital work Districts’ pipes are greater than 70 years old

OUT OF DI STRI CT COSTS:

• Sewage Transport
• Treatment and Disposal
• Downstream Agency Capital Improvement

Projects

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL:

• Each District has an Agreement with the

downstream agency for sewage transport, treatment, and disposal

• Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District has an

agreement with the City of Redwood City

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL:

• The District will pay the City of Redwood City:
• for transporting, treating, and disposing of

sewage from the District

• payment includes costs associated with
• peration and maintenance of facilities
• wned by SBSA and used by the District

and City

• costs based on flow from the District

What do the Agreements specify?

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL:

• Capital Improvement Projects at the South Bayside

System Authority (SBSA)

• The amount of flow from the District

What affects the amount the District pays the City?

• SBSA is planning capital improvements worth multi-

million dollars

• The capital improvements will replace equipment

which have reached the end of their useful lives

• SBSA will be charging the member agencies

(Redwood City, San Carlos, Belmont, and West Bay Sanitary District) for the improvements

SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESS

SERVI CES PROVI DED BY DI STRI CTS:

Image Source: SBSA

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL:

A portion of the SSC rates were calculated to pay for transport, treatment, and disposal and anticipated increases in treatment costs and capital improvements

• Based on information from downstream

agencies or projected increases based on historical data

• 3% contingency applied

MINIMUM FUND RESERVE TARGETS:

50% of Operations and Maintenance Costs (6 mo.) and 3% of the replacement value (Best Management Practices)

• r $100,000 for small districts

*Replacement value includes construction costs only

District Replacement Value* Minimum Fund Reserve Target Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District $67,186,000 $3,764,000

PROPOSED RATES:

• SSC Rates determined to meet anticipated

expenditures immediately

Balanced Budget Phased Increase

• SSC Rates determined to steadily increase to meet

future expenditures

• Phased Increase may rely on Fund Reserve to meet

future expenditures

PROPOSED RATES:

Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/Year Per Residential Unit) 2006-07 Proposed Rates 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 FOSMD Balanced Budget $267 $400 $400 $400 $420 $470 Phased Increase $350 $390 $430 $470 $510

SSC vs FUND RESERVE:

Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District Sewer Service Charge Options and Beginning FY Fund Reserve

$4,197,847 $4,904,845 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,500,000 $5,000,000 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fiscal Year Fund Reserve ($) $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 $500 $550 Sewer Service Charge Rate ($) Balanced SSC Phased SSC Fund Reserve (Balanced) Fund Reserve (Phased) Min Target Fund Reserve

RATE SETTING PROCESS:

Key Dates Actions May 2, 2007 Sent all property owners information about sewer systems and what their sewer service charge pays for. Early/Mid May Sent all property owners information about proposed rates and timing

• f meetings with property owners.

May 15 District staff provided Board with status update on proposed sewer service charge rates and received approval of proposed process and elements of the rates. Mid/End of May Meetings with property owners of each district to discuss the proposed rates, factors involved in establishing rates, and seek property owner input. June 5 Introduce Ordinance with proposed sewer service rates for 2007-08 through 2011-2012 fiscal years and set Public Hearing for July 24 at 9:15am. June 8 Send Prop 218 notice (45 days prior to public hearing) to property

• wners with proposed rates.

July 24 Hold public hearing, adopt Ordinance setting rates, and adopt 2007-08 Sewer Service Charges Report based on the adopted rates.

QUESTIONS & INPUT

District Services Rate Development Rate Adoption Process and Schedule Others

CONTACT INFORMATION

Please e-mail your comments and questions to: sewers@co.sanmateo.ca.us Information is available on our website at: http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/sewers