PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES Crystal Springs - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PROPERTY OWNERS MEETING SEWER SERVICE CHARGE RATES

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District

Highlands Elementary School 2320 Newport Street San Mateo Highlands May 30, 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:

Sewage Flows Through the Town of Hillsborough and City of San Mateo to the City of San Mateo’s Treatment Plant for Treatment

District Boundary San Mateo Hillsborough

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?

CSCSD Sample Property Tax Allocation (TRA 078-018)

Crystal Springs CSD 0.99% Bel Aire Lighting 1.54% General County Tax 17.38% Highlands Drainage 0.12% Junior High School 4.97% County Education Tax 2.59% Peninsula Hospital Dist 0.67% Highlands Recreation 10.33% Highlands Landscape 1.79% Mosquito Abatement 0.14% County Harbor District 0.26% Air Quality Mngmnt 0.15% CSA No. 1 25.59% Elementary School 18.25% High School 12.68% Free Library 2.53%

District Miles of Pipe Percentage in Easements Percentage in Streets Crystal Springs CSD 18.95 29.28% 70.72%

*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 Crystal Springs CSD 60 1,429 1,501 Town of Hillsborough & City of San Mateo City of San Mateo

DI STRI CT SPECI FI C STATI STI CS:

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

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:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District - Option 1 FY 07-08 Proposed Rate of $2,000 Per ERU

Regulations 1.6% Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & Interest) 0.9% Fund Reserve 7.4% District CIP 5.5% Out of District CIP 69.2% O&M 6.1% Treatment 9.3%

I n D i s t r i c t

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District - Option 2 FY 07-08 Proposed Rate of $1,250 Per ERU

O&M 13.8% Regulations 3.6% Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & Interest) 2.2% Fund Reserve 25.5% Out of District CIP 21.8% District CIP 12.3% Treatment 20.9%

In District

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District - Option 3 FY 07-08 Proposed Rate of $1,000 Per ERU

Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & Interest) 2.7% Regulations 4.4% Fund Reserve 23.1% Treatment 25.9% Out of District CIP 26.9% O&M 17.0%

In District

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District - Option 4 FY 07-08 Proposed Rate of $900 Per ERU

O&M 18.8% Treatment 28.6% Regulations 4.9% Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & Interest) 3.0% Fund Reserve 14.8% Out of District CIP 29.8%

I n D i s t r i c t

DI STRI CT EXPENSES:

DI STRI CT EXPENDI TURE COMPARI SON

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District Fiscal Year 2005-06 and 2007-08 Expenditure Comparison

$- $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,000,000 $2,400,000 $2,800,000 2005-06 2007-08 (Option 1) 2007-08 (Option 2) 2007-08 (Option 3) 2007-08 (Option 4) Fiscal Year Expenditure ($)

Treatment Regulations District CIP Out of District CIP 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!!!

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

REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE:

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?

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

District CIP Identified in Sewer Master Plan

Priority # of Projects Identified Length of Pipe to be Upgraded Estimated Construction Cost Priority 1 – Capacity 1 ~ 5,000’ $1,066,852 Priority 2 –Maintenance 2 ~ 3,600’ $572,005 Priority 3 - Structural 5 ~ 10,900’ $1,737,826 Priority 3 - Structural (Video Inspection Only) 1 ~ 3,100’ $7,330

Totals

9 ~ 22,600 ft. * $3,384,013 **

District CIP Completed

Priority Number

• f Projects

Actual Cost Priority 1 - Capacity 1 $ 823,357

* CIP Lengths Identified Represent Approximately 22.5% of District’s Total Length of Sewer Mains (100,053 feet).

** Estimated cost includes design, administration, and inspection

Recommended and completed CIP in District:

Completed

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

What projects still need to be completed?

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

Remaining District CIP

Priority Number of Projects Length of Pipe to be Upgraded Estimated Construction Cost Priority 2 – Maintenance 2 ~ 3,600’ $572,005 Priority 3 - Structural 5 ~ 10,900’ $1,737,826 Priority 3 - Structural (Video Inspection Only) 1 ~ 3,100’ $7,330 Totals 8 ~ 17,600 ft. * $2,317,161 **

* Remaining CIP Lengths Represent Approximately 17.5% of District’s Total Length of Sewer Mains (100,053 feet).

** Estimated cost includes design, administration, and inspection

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 60 years old

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

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

Projects

OUT OF DI STRI CT COSTS:

Each District has an Agreement with a downstream agency for sewage transport, treatment, and disposal

• A four party agreement covering “jointly used

facilities” exists between:

• County of San Mateo
• Crystal Springs County Sanitation

District (CSCSD)

• Town of Hillsborough
• City of San Mateo

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

• The “jointly used facilities” include:
• CSCSD’s sewer line in Polhemus Road
• Hillsborough’s sewer line in Crystal

Springs Road and El Cerrito Avenue

• San Mateo sewer line in Tilton Avenue,

Idaho Street, Dale Avenue Pump Station, the sewer line to the wastewater treatment plant, and the wastewater treatment plant

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

DOWNSTREAM AGENCY CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS:

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

• The Agreement specifies how costs are

determined for each agency for their use of the “jointly used facilities”.

• The costs include transport, treatment,

disposal, operation and maintenance of “jointly used facilities”, and capital improvement projects on “jointly used facilities”

• The District’s costs are calculated based
• n flow from the District

What do the Agreements specify?

DOWNSTREAM AGENCY CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS:

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

CSCSD flow comparison between Dry and Wet Weather Conditions

Wet weather flow Dry weather flow

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

• Treatment costs
• Capital Improvement Projects on the “jointly used

facilities”

What affects the amount the District pays for the use of the “jointly used facilities”?

• Hillsborough and San Mateo are planning capital

improvements worth millions of dollars

• The capital improvements are required to meet

regulations and will replace equipment which have reached the end of their useful lives

• Hillsborough and San Mateo will be charging the

District its share for the improvements

SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESS

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, AND DI SPOSAL:

Image Source: City of San Mateo

DOWNSTREAM AGENCY CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS:

The CSCSD, Hillsborough, and San Mateo are working together to develop timelines, cost estimates, and anticipated costs per agency for the following capital improvement projects: Town of Hillsborough

• Crystal Springs-El Cerrito Trunk, Ph II

City of San Mateo

• WWTP Expansion, Ph III
• El Cerrito Relief Sewer Line
• Force Main - Dale Ave to WWTP
• WWTP Hydraulic Improvements

DOWNSTREAM AGENCY CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS:

CSCSD CIP I (Polhemus Project): City of San Mateo’s share = $157,178.88 County of San Mateo’s share = $70,479.37 based on 2002-03 flow data.

CSCSD – 80.43% City of San Mateo – 14.77% County of San Mateo – 4.80% CSCSD – 46.75% City of San Mateo – 12.10% County of San Mateo – 3.94% Town of Hillsborough – 37.21% CSCSD – 4.45% City of San Mateo – 92.73% County of San Mateo – 0.24% Town of Hillsborough – 2.58%

Percentages are based on 2005-06 CSCSD Annual Report.

DOWNSTREAM AGENCY CAPI TAL I MPROVEMENT PROJECTS:

Project Name Total Cost CSCSD's Share 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Town of Hillsborough Crystal Springs-El Cerrito Trunk, Ph II 8,600,000 $ 46.75% 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 2,600,000 $ City of San Mateo WWTP Expansion, Ph III 10,000,000 $ 4.45% 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ El Cerrito Relief Sewer Line 8,000,000 $ 46.75% 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ Force Main - Dale Ave to WWTP 6,000,000 $ WWTP Hydraulic Improvements 10,000,000 $ Total Downstream CIP (Hillsborough and San Mateo) = 42,600,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 4,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 9,500,000 $ 3,600,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 4.45%

El Cerrito Parallel 18" Sewer Trunk Line

WWTP

Dale Ave. Pumpstation

• B

u r l i n g a m e City of San Mateo Hillsborough S a n F r a n c isc

• B

a y

^ _

• Sewer Study Recommendations

CONSTRUCT NEW SEWERS CONSTRUCT P ARALLEL SEWERS UPSIZE SEWERS E lCerritoNewTrunk WWTP Outfall

WWTP Hydraulics Improvements / Outfall

Forcemain from Dale Ave. Pumpstation to WWTP

Dale Ave. Pumpstation

WWTP

Dale to WWTP Upgrade

SEWAGE TRANSPORT, TREATMENT, DI SPOSAL, AND DOWNSTREAM CI P:

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

• Based on information from downstream

agencies or projected increases based on historical data

• 3% contingency applied

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

MI NI MUM FUND RESERVE TARGETS:

District Replacement Value* Minimum Fund Reserve Target

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District $13,133,100 $713,000

Option 1 – Pay now (existing debt to City of San Mateo ) Option 2 – Obtain additional 15-yr loan ($1.3 Million) Option 3 – Obtain additional 15-yr loan ($1.3 Million) and no District CIP Option 4 – Lower rate, obtain additional 15-yr loan ($1.3 Million) and no District CIP

Rate Options

PROPOSED RATES:

PROPOSED RATES:

Sewer Service Charge Rate ($/Year Per Residential Unit) 2006-07 2007-08

CSCSD Option 1 – Pay now $496 $2,000 Option 2 – Obtain additional 15-yr loan $1,250 Option 3 – Obtain additional 15-yr loan and no District CIP $1,000 Option 4 – Lower rate, obtain additional 15-yr loan and no District CIP $900

SSC vs FUND RESERVE:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (Option 1 & 2) Sewer Service Charge and Beginning FY Fund Reserve

$541,424 $(616,975) $866,000

• $2,000,000
• $1,750,000
• $1,500,000
• $1,250,000
• $1,000,000
• $750,000
• $500,000
• $250,000

$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fiscal Year Beginning Fund Reserve ($) $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Sewer Service Charge Rate ($)

Min Target Fund Reserve Option 1 SSC Option 1 Fund Reserve Option 2 SSC Option 2 Fund Reserve

SSC vs FUND RESERVE:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (Option 1 & 3) Sewer Service Charge and Beginning FY Fund Reserve

$541,424 $(871,439) $866,000

• $2,000,000
• $1,750,000
• $1,500,000
• $1,250,000
• $1,000,000
• $750,000
• $500,000
• $250,000

$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fiscal Year Beginning Fund Reserve ($) $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Sewer Service Charge Rate ($)

Min Target Fund Reserve Option 1 SSC Option 1 Fund Reserve Option 3 SSC Option 3 Fund Reserve

SSC vs FUND RESERVE:

Crystal Springs County Sanitation District (Option 1 & 4) Sewer Service Charge and Beginning FY Fund Reserve

$541,424 $(1,045,223) $866,000

• $2,000,000
• $1,750,000
• $1,500,000
• $1,250,000
• $1,000,000
• $750,000
• $500,000
• $250,000

$0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Fiscal Year Beginning Fund Reserve ($) $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 Sewer Service Charge Rate ($)

Min Target Fund Reserve Option 1 SSC Option 1 Fund Reserve Option 4 SSC Option 4 Fund Reserve

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.

RATE SETTI NG PROCESS:

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