HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-04-15 e-packet~P~G1A~ M~T'~ ~ IN~s
~G`T~I S~~~
a ~ REDEVE.LOPMENT AGI?~TCY
'" ~) CiTY OF SOUTH SAN FRA:[~CISCO
o
c~Li`~cR~'~ CITY COLivTCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRA:I~CISCO
P.O. Bcx 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
CITY HALL
LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVEI~LJE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, t~A 94080
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2009
7:00 P.M.
NOTICE IS HLRLI3Y GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on Wednesday, the 15°' day of April, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the
Large Conferen•:;e Room, at City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order.
2. Roll Call.
3. Caltrain Station discussion.
4. Study Session: review and provision of direction related to Proposed Five
(5) year Sewer Rate Increase Plan.
5. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators
(Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8)
Property under negotiation: City Owned
Property at Oyster Point Marina
(APN #'s 015-010-240, 015-010-260, 015-010-270, 015-010-500, 015-
010-600, 015-010-630, 015-190-170, 015-190-190)
Agency negotiator: Marty Van Duyn.
Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency, and Oyster Point Ventures, LLC.
i
6. Adjournment.
(;
\ Krista artinelli-Larson
~- ~-• ity Clerk
Staff Report
DATE: April 15, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Caltrain Station
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss the proposed changes to the schedule for
the design and construction of the new South San Francisco Caltrain Station and provide
direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION _ _ __
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and the City of South San Francisco (SSF) have been collaborating on a joint project to
construct a new Caltrain Station in South San Francisco. The new station will include an entry
plaza at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue. A pedestrian underpass will
connect the entry plaza with the center boarding platform and the Executive Drive shuttle area.
Caltrans, the JPB and the City have executed a Cooperative Agreement and Maintenance
Agreement that allocates responsibility for construction of the Project and maintenance of
improvements.
Pursuant to the agreements executed above, the City has been negotiating the purchase of the
Caltrans Maintenance facility with Caltrans for the entry plaza to the station. These negotiations
also included an airspace lease of the property under Highway 101 to accommodate the
"underpass" construction that will connect the entry plaza with the center boarding platform and
the Executive Drive shuttle area. Furthermore, the City has reached agreement with Comfort
Suites for the purchase of property at the intersection of Grand Ave and Executive Drive as well
as with Boston Properties to transfer the properties encompassing Executive Drive and Corporate
Drive right of way. As part of the City's responsibility, we are in the process of demolishing the
old Caltrans maintenance facility at 296 Airport Boulevard as well as completing the
environmental investigation. for hazardous material remediation at the site.
Staff Report
Subject: Caltrain Station
Page 2 of 2
The plans and specifications for the station are 90% complete and construction of the station is
planned to start in late 2009 and completed within 2 years. However, JPB has just notified the
City that it would only be able to construct the underpass without relocating/constructing the new
platform. This underpass would connect the east and west side of the freeway without any
connection to the station platform. This is because JPB has been unable to reach an agreement
with Union Pacific (UP) for the relocation of train tracks and the future need for redesign of tracks
due to High Speed Rail (HSR).
The construction of the underpass without relocating the platform would only be cause for
nuisance and a maintenance issue for the City. Station passengers would continue to access the
existing station without any additional amenities, connectivity, safety or access to downtown. It
could be several years before JPB can redesign the tracks for HSR, conclude the negotiations with
UP and construct the platform with connections to the underpass.
Mr. Ian McAvoy, Chief Development Officer for Caltrain, will be available at the study session to
discuss the schedule impact from Union Pacific and High Speed Rail Authority and respond to
council questions.
FUNDING
This project is partially included in the City of South San Francisco's 2008-2009 Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) for right of way acquisition and a portion of the City's share of
construction upgrades. The remaining portion of the work is to be funded through additional
appropriations in the 2009- 2010 CIP due to be approved by Council in late June.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the status for design and construction of the SSF Caltrain Station and discussion
with Mr. Ian McAvoy, Chief Development Officer for Caltrain, Council will provide direction for
staff to proceed.
~..
By:
Terry ite
Director of Public Works
Approve ~ : ~ ~ '~
a .Nagel
City Manager
~°~~x ~~~
0
n
~.
y
J O
c'~LIFOR~1~
Staff Rebort
DATE: April 15, 2009
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works
Jim Steele, Finance Director
SUBJECT: PROPOSED FIVE YEAR SEWER RATE INCREASE PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and discuss the proposed revisions to the
sewer service rates for Fiscal Years (FY) 2009-10 through 2013-14 as requested by Council
at the March 25, 2009 study session, and provide direction to staffwho will then prepare the
necessary noticing for a public hearing in June, in compliance with Proposition 218.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At its March 2S, 2009 study session, staff presented Council with several scenarios of rate
increases to fund the -ever growing sewer fund debt service, maintain proper care of the treatment
plant and collection system infrastructure, and ongoing operational costs. Staff also presented for
discussion the potential environmental upgrades that could be mandated by the State Water Board
within the current five year National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Rates were last reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 in 2004.
Council elected to put in place an increase of 2S% for sewer service for the 2004-2005 fiscal year,
and then annual increases of up to 9% each year for FY 2005/06 through FY 2008/09, all of which
were implemented. As was discussed, past improvements to the plant have taken place along with
numerous wet weather projects to satisfy the Water Board's Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued
to the City in 1997. The CDO gave the City ten years to comply and the City met that goal but at
a cost of nearly $7S million.
The City has been issued a new NPDES permit by the Water Board which establishes new criteria
for plant operations over the next five years. These requirements and routine plant operations
require new funding. The rebuilding of three digesters, outfall line repair, and miscellaneous
projects are part of normal maintenance activities. Upgrading the cogeneration facility, installation
of solar systems, and construction of a recycled water generating facility are optional plans but
Council has indicated they are good investments. These items were factored into the rates
reviewed by Council at the study session. While Council recognizes the condition of certain
components of the plant; understands the need to find alternative energy sources, and the need to
pursue recycled water capabilities, they also are very aware of the economic climate and do not
Staff Report
Subject: PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASI?
Page 2 of 3
wish to increase rates beyond what is essential and necessary. Consequently, Council instructed
staff to "flatten out" the proposed Option II of an increase plan which would see 20% in year 1,
10% in year 2, 5% in year 3, and 0% in years 3 and 4 as outlined below.
Option II includes the following improvements which are extremely vital;
1. Outfall repair costs totaling $400,000;
2. Reliability improvements to the aging Plant. These improvements are needed for
components of the Plant which are quite old, and which were not upgraded during the
plant upgrades over the past decade. These include such items as replacement of three (3)
digesters, retrofitting grit basins, and replacing the main emergency generators at a cost
totaling $25 million.
3. Seismic upgrades to the Plant, totaling $500,000; and
These items which are not required but Council has indicated are good environmental
investments;
4. Green technology improvements which include installing new solar and wind energy, and
expanding the cogeneration capabilities of the plant to save additional energy. These
improvements would result in energy savings over time, and would help reduce the City's
carbon footprint. $5 million total costs (net of grants and rebates).
5. Cost for installing a Recycled Water Treatment and Transmission Facility in partnership
with the San Francisco PUC, and potentially Cal Water and the City of San Bruno. This
facility would only be triggered once cost sharing agreements are reached with at least the
PUC, and staff will come back to Council at that trigger point. $5 million is our total cost
commitment.
Option II 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Rate Increase
Needed 20% 10% 5% 0% 0%
After further review of the cash flow projections and the timing of such improvements, staff has
worked to bring down the front end costs by spreading them across the five year plan and
increasing the reliance on debt financing. The debt financing has been increased by approximately
$3.5 million from $29 million to $32.5 million. The total cost to construct the improvements
remain the same, however, the timing for construction is staggered. Some risk is assumed by
deferring replacement of critical components of the plant, however, staff feels these are reasonable
risks and will give Council a flatter rate increase schedule to service the debt and fund ongoing
operational costs.
Staff Report
Subject: PROPOSED SEWER RATE INCREASI?
Page 3 of 3
The revised rate proposal is as follows:
Option II 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
(Revised)
Rate Increase
Needed 10% 10% 8% 8% 7%
Council also inquired as to the rate structure (Dynamic Pricing) for residential customers being
tied to water volume consumption rather than an annual flat rate. Commercial rate payers follow
this structure and if the residential payers were handled the same way, a cost per hundred cubic
feet, (HCF) would be established and calculated against their water meter numbers obtained by
California Water service in the previous year. The calculations would be done and sent to the
County Assessor for inclusion into the next year's assessment.
Staff contacted three other cities (Daly City, San Bruno, and San Mateo) to inquire about their
residential pricing schedule. It is common for winter water usage to be averaged per residential
unit (to net out the effects of irrigation), with a sewer rate set based on the average of water usage
in those months. Unlike those three cities, the City of South San Francisco has no garbage or
water utility billing system in place, that is, has no database of customers linked to consumption,
and also has no utility billing staff. Given the time involved in requesting/obtaining the data and
processing it, insufficient time exists to follow this option and meet the Proposition 218 deadlines
for this year's rate process. Staff will run examples of random properties and the associated costs
involved to perform this work for Council's future consideration.
CONCLUSION
City staff has continued to work with the financial forecast model for the Sewer Fund, taking into
consideration ongoing operational costs and new CIP prof ects that should be undertaken. Based on
Council direction, this evaluation was considered and staff feels is workable. Therefore, staff
recommends that a new five year plan of rate increases be authorized by the Council for the 2009-
10through 2013-14 fiscal years reflecting this modified structure. Council direction on this rate is
necessary so work can begin on the documents needed to notify to all ratepayers in advance of a
public hearing in June, in compliance with Proposition 218.
By: ~ . Approve : ~ • ~
.~,-r Terry hite M. Nage
~/ Director of Public Works City Manager
Attachments: Timeline for Proposition 218 noticing
Projected Residential Survey
PowerPoint presentation
Timeline for Actions Needed for 2009-10 Rate Increase
for Compliance with Proposition 218:
Last date availabe
for review/action
Final Decision on Rates Needed
From Council (Approval of
Resolution Authorizing a 5 year
Rate program, with final Not to
Exceed Rates per year)
Final Draft of Notices, including
explanation, program details, rates,
protest procedures, and date of
public hearing
Notices Mailed along with
Proposed Rates for 5 Years to All
Sewer Ratepayers
22-Apr
4-May
8-May
45 day noticing requirement
Public Hearing, Formal Protest
Vote Tabulation at Council
Meeting:
24-J u n
Update property/parcel database
records for property tax bills, due to
County on 8-Jul
First Bond Sale Needed: July 2010 -September 2010
Est.$6 million for Required Plant
Reliability Improvements
-1-
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL SURVEY
SEWER SERVICE CHARGE
SAN MATED COUNTY
(AS OF MARCH 2009)
TREATING 65 UNITS OF WATER A YEAR
AGENCY PROJECTED COSTS IN FY 09/10
MONTARA SANITARY DIST. $1905
HILLSBOROUGH $1563
HALF MOON BAY $939
PACIFICA $618
BURLINGAME $538
BRISBANE $535
SAN CARLOS $525*
SAN BRUNO $518
FOSTER CITY $492*
REDWOOD CITY $492*
MILLBRAE $455
BELMONT $441
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO $422*
(with proposed 10% increase)
MENLO PARK $400*
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO $384
(Current Charge)
DALY CITY $315
EL GRANADA SANITARY $314*
SAN MATED $293
AVG $625
*Flat charge per year not tied to individual water consumption.
Other listed rates are annual estimates based on homeowners "average" monthly domestic
water consumption charges that can vary from year to year, household to household. (1 unit
equals 748 gallons.)
-2-