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 �
HI SMD: Pipes ~ 1 Mile ERU - 234 BHSMD: Pipes ~ 7 Miles SHCSD: ERU - 426 Pipes ~ 2 Miles ERU - 58 CSCSD: OKSMD: Pipes ~ 19 Miles Pipes ~ 2 Miles ERU – 1,501 ERU - 118 DCSD: KSSMD: Pipes ~ 4 Miles Pipes ~ 0.8 Miles ERU - 293 ERU - 74 ESMD: Pipes ~ 0.3 Miles ELHSMD: FOSMD: ERU - 18 Pipes ~ 29 Miles Pipes ~ 81 Miles ERU – 12,597 ERU – 1,657
DI STRI CT BOUNDARY MAP: 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 North District Fair Oaks Boundary Redwood Atherton City Woodside Atherton
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) Sequoia Hospital Dist 1.66% County Harbor District Mosquito Abatement 0.40% 0.22% Air Quality Mngmnt County Education Tax 0.24% 3.99% Mid Penn ROSD 2.08% Fair Oaks SMD 1.35% SM Junior High School 7.67% General County Tax 26.81% SU High School 17.67% Free Library 3.91% RWC Elem School County Fire Protection 26.74% 7.27%
DI STRI CT SPECI FI C STATI STI CS: Equivalent Downstream Age Number of Treatment District Residential Transport (yrs)* Connections** Facility Units** Agency City of Fair Oaks SMD 77 7,345 12,597 SBSA Redwood City *Age based on District formation date ** Based on 2006-07 SSC Report Percentage Percentage in District Miles of Pipe in Streets Easements Fair Oaks SMD 81.3 17.30% 82.70%
ORGANI ZATI ONAL STRUCTURE OF DI STRI CTS: SAN MATEO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS James C. Porter, Director UTILITIES-FLOOD CONTROL-WATERSHED PROTECTION SECTION Ann M. Stillman, Principal Civil Engineer 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
HOW DOES A SEWER SYSTEM WORK? Each District Relies On Downstream Agencies To Transport The District Collected Sewage To The Treatment Plant Image Source: Pixel-Gym
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 Fund Reserve * O&M 19.2% 20.6% Other Revenue (Tax Revenue & In District Interest) 7.0% Regulations 6.3% Treatment District CIP 34.2% 12.7% * Contributes to Fund Reserve
DI STRI CT EXPENDI TURE COMPARI SON Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District Fiscal Year 2005-06 and 2007-08 Expenditure Comparison $5,000,000 Regulations $4,000,000 Expenditure ($) District CIP $3,000,000 O&M $2,000,000 $1,000,000 Treatment $- 2005-06 2007-08 Fiscal Year
OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE: � 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 Image Source: City of Irving, Texas
OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE: 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
REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE: THE DISTRICTS ARE REGULATED BY: � The Regional Water Quality Control Board � The State Water Resources Control Board � The State Porter-Cologne Act � The Federal Clean Water Act
REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE: 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 SSO from Manhole SSO from Manhole Near Creek SSO from Cleanout
REGULATI ON COMPLI ANCE: 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. Notice of Violation & Intent Notice of Violation & Intent to File Suit (60- -Day Notice) Day Notice) to File Suit (60 Collection System Settlement Agreement Collection System Settlement Agreement Fines!!! Plaintiffs WCWD WCWD Baykeeper, West County Toxic Coalition Lawyers for Clean Water o Collection System Capital Improvement Program Environmental Advocates o Commit $5M over 10 years vs. o System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) Defendants o Revise within 18 months o Update 2015 West County Wastewater District (WCWD) o CCTV-Sewer Condition Grading City of Richmond o Gravity Sewer Line Cleaning Schedule Veolia Water NA o <12” once every 4 years o >12” once every 10 years Downey Brand LLP o Design for 5 year-24/hr Storm Event Settlement Agreement Fees o Continue FOG Program - Increase FSE Inspections Settlement Agreement Fees o Attain SSO Reduction Goals WCWD/Richmond/Veolia WCWD/Richmond/Veolia o WCA NPDES Effluent Limit Violations o SEP Rose Foundation $80,000 o Attorneys Fees (Plaintiff) $57,000 The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality o Collection System Settlement Fees Control Board imposed a $516,000 fine to the City of o Attorneys Fees (Plaintiff) - $538,000 o Oversight Cost (Plaintiff) - $100,000 South San Francisco in 2006 for sewer overflows and o Attorneys Fees (Defendants) - $300,000 o Staff Resources/In-house Counsel - $50,000 a $626,000 administrative civil liability to the City and o Settlement Agreement was reached in 15 months County of San Francisco in an impending order.
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? � Collection system management goals � Organization of personnel, chain of command, and communications Aug 31 2006 � Overflow emergency response plan � Fat, Oils and Grease (FOG) control program � Legal authority for permitting flows into the system, I&I control and enforcement of proper design, installation, testing standards and Aug 31 inspection requirements for new and rehabilitated sewers 2007 � Measures and activities to maintain the wastewater collection system � Design and construction standards � Capacity Management � Monitoring plan for SSMP program effectiveness Aug 31 � Periodic SSMP Audits, periodic SSMP updates, and implementation of 2008 program � Communication Program
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 � Spot Repairs � Repairing sections of pipe based on CCTV findings � Repair 2% of televised pipe system per year � Equipment Upgrades � Replacing, upgrading, or purchasing equipment for effective maintenance of sewer system 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
Recommend
More recommend
