HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-09-07 e-packet@6:00Wednesday, September 7, 2016
6:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
September 7, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on
Wednesday, September 7, 2016, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue,
South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Public Comments – comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Agenda Review.
Report regarding Board and Commission interviews and appointments to the Cultural
Arts Commission and San Mateo County Flood Control District. (Krista Martinelli,
City Clerk).
1.
a. Interview Applicants for Multiple Positions
6:00 p.m.: Alvin Zachariah (Cultural Arts Commission; San Mateo County
Flood Control District)
6:10 p.m.: Kurpita Bogdan (Cultural Arts Commission, Housing Authority
Tenant Commissioner Seat; Library Board)
b. Interview Applicants for Cultural Arts Commission
6:20 p.m.: James Bertoldi
6:30 p.m.: Lenita Boldenweck
6:40 p.m.: PaulaClaudine Hobson- Coard
6:50 p.m.: Shane Looper
7:00 p.m.: Amethyst Monce
7:10 p.m.: Jessica Madrid Nickle
7:20 p.m.: Dominador Ofrecio
7:30 p.m.: Jacqueline Pettinari
7:40 p.m.: Florida Ventura
7:50 p.m.: Cassandra Woo
Previously interviewed applicants Bogdan and Zachariah.
c. Interview applicants for multiple positions (continued) and consideration of
acceptance of late application.
8:00 p.m.: Elena Gekker (Cultural Arts Commission; Housing Authority)
d. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicants to the Cultural Arts
Commission. Council may appoint nine (9) applicants to respective terms
expiring June 13, 2020.
Applicants: Bertoldi, Bogdan, Boldenweck, Gekker, Hobson-Coard, Looper,
Monce, Madrid Nickle, Ofrecio, Pettinari, Ventura, Woo and Zachariah.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/21/2016
September 7, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
e. Discussion and consideration of appointment of applicant to the San Mateo
County Flood Control District. Council may appoint one (1) applicant to a term
expiring March 31, 2020.
Applicant: Zachariah.
Proclamation for National Preparedness Month accepted by Ken Anderson, Sr.,
Emergency Services Manager. (Mark Addiego, Mayor)
2.
Report regarding the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report on Sanitary Districts
and the City of South San Francisco’s recommended response. (Brian Schumacker,
Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent)
3.
Report regarding the League of California Cities resolution to prioritize traffic safety,
confirming Councilmember Garbarino as the appointed member of the General
Resolutions Committee to vote on behalf of the City of South San Francisco, and
confirming the candidates on the Peninsula Division Executive Committee ballot.
(Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager)
4.
Adjournment.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/21/2016
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-643,Version:1
Report regarding Board and Commission interviews and appointments to the Cultural Arts Commission and San Mateo
County Flood Control District.(Krista Martinelli, City Clerk).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider the attached citizen applications for appointment to
the open seats on the Cultural Arts Commission,Housing Authority,Library Board and San Mateo
County Flood Control District and that City Council interview each citizen.It is further recommended
that upon completion of interviews,Council move to appoint individuals to the Cultural Arts
Commission and San Mateo County Flood Control District on September 7,2016.Appointments to the
Conference Center Authority,Housing Authority and Library Board should be made on September 21,
2016 after all of the applicants have had an opportunity to interview.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Pursuant to Resolution No.27-2009,the City Council holds biannual recruitments/meetings for the purpose of
considering appointments to Boards and Commissions.In July 2016,due to expiration of terms and resignations,the City
Clerk’s Office initiated recruitment for several Boards and Commissions.The application deadline was August 26,2016
at 5:00 p.m.Due to a technical issue one application that was faxed prior to the deadline was received after the deadline.
This application was submitted by Elena Gekker and is being presented for consideration in the City Council’s discretion.
On September 7,2016,Council will interview applicants for the Cultural Arts Commission and San Mateo County Flood
Control District.Appointments to these Commissions are also scheduled for September 7th.For efficiency purposes,on
September 7th,applicant Kurpita Bogdan,who applied to the Cultural Arts Commission,will also be interviewed on his
applications to the Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner Seat and Library Board.In City Council’s discretion,
applicant Elena Gekker can be interviewed for the Cultural Arts Commission and Housing Authority on this same
evening.Appointments to the Housing Authority and Library Board are scheduled to be made on September 21,2016
after Council has the opportunity to interview the complete applicant pool for these positions.
Summary of Open Seats
·Cultural Arts Commission:The terms of all nine (9)Cultural Arts Commissioners expired on June 13,
2016.Eight (8)of the incumbents have reapplied for their respective positions.Nine (9)applicants may
be appointed to respective terms expiring June 13, 2020.
·Housing Authority Tenant Seat:Tenant Commissioner Heden’s term expired on March 31,2016.
Commissioner Heden has reapplied for her seat.One (1)applicant may be appointed to a term expiring
March 31, 2018.
·Library Board:Trustee Lambertson’s Term expired on June 30,2016.Trustee Lambertson has
reapplied for her seat. One (1) applicant may be appointed to a term expiring June 30, 2019.
·San Mateo County Flood Control District:Commissioner Bonanno’s term expired March 31,2016.City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-643,Version:1
·San Mateo County Flood Control District:Commissioner Bonanno’s term expired March 31,2016.
Commissioner Bonanno has not reapplied.One (1)applicant may be appointed to a term expiring
March 31, 2020.
Summary of Meeting Times, Term Lengths/Limits and Agency Purpose
The Cultural Arts Commission meets on the third Thursday of every month at 7:00 p.m.in the Betty Weber
Room of the Municipal Services Building located at 33 Arroyo Drive in South San Francisco.Commissioners
are appointed to four (4)year terms and are limited to three (3)consecutive terms.The Commission
encourages and promotes cultural arts activities within the community and acts as an advisory body to the City
Council on matters pertaining to the arts and cultural affairs.
The Housing Authority meets the second Monday of the month at 6:00 p.m.at 350 C Street.Non-Tenant
Commissioners serve a four-year term.The Housing Authority’s services include developing,operating and
maintaining housing projects and examining affordable housing issues,including unmet housing needs of low
income residents.
The Library Board meets on the fourth Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m.at the Main Library.Trustees are
appointed to a three (3)year term with a limit of appointment to four (4)consecutive terms.The Library Board
works in conjunction with the Library Director to develop a plan of service,evaluate and advise Council and
staff on the need for services and programs and adopt policies as necessary for the administration of the
Library.
The San Mateo County Flood Control District (“SMCFCD”)meets quarterly on the second Tuesday of the last
month in the quarter at 3:00 p.m.at South San Francisco City Hall.Members are appointed to a four (4)year
term. The SMCFCD oversees financing of flood control projects in San Mateo County.
Applications Received
The City Clerk’s Office has confirmed the applicants listed below are electors and/or business representatives
(where applicable) of the City of South San Francisco.
Cultural Arts Commission (1 vacancy):
·James Bertoldi*
·Kurpita Bogdan
·Lenita Boldenwick*
·Elena Gekker (Consideration of application in City Council’s discretion)
·PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard*
·Shane Looper*
·Amethyst Monce*
·Jessica Madrid Nickle*
·Dominador Ofrecio
·Jacqueline Pettinari*
·Florida Ventura
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-643,Version:1
Cultural Arts Commission (continued) (8 term expirations, 1 vacancy):
·Cassandra Woo*
·Alvin Zachariah
Housing Authority Tenant Seat (1 term expiration):
·Kurpita Bogdan
·Eloise Heden*
Library Board (1 term expiration)
·Kurpita Bogdan
·Anthony Estrada Jr.
·Valerie Lambertson*
·Christopher Ramirez
·Steven Yee
San Mateo County Flood Control District (1 vacancy)
·Alvin Zachariah
* Denotes incumbent(s)
Interview Questions
Council’s standard interview questions for new applicants and incumbents will be distributed at the meeting.
CONCLUSION
Upon review of the applications and completion of interviews, Council may consider and entertain respective
motions to appoint applicants to fill the seats on the Cultural Arts Commission and San Mateo County Flood
Control District. Remaining interviews and prospective appointments to the Conference Center Authority,
Housing Authority and Library Board are scheduled for September 21, 2016.
Attachments:
·1 - 13 Applications
·14 - 15 Ballots
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
VOTING BALLOT
CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION
VOTE FOR NINE(9)
“*” denotes incumbents
Applicant Please markyour vote
James Bertoldi*
Kurpita Bogdan
Lenita Boldenweck*
Elena Gekker
PaulaClaudine Hobson-
Coard*
Shane Looper*
Jessica Madrid Nickle*
Amethyst Monce*
Dominador Ofrecio
Jacqueline Pettinari*
Florida Ventura
Cassandra Woo*
Alvin Zachariah
Signed:
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 2016
VOTING BALLOT
SAN MATEO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
VOTE FOR ONE (1)
Applicant Please markyour vote
Alvin Zachariah
Signed:
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-538,Version:1
Proclamation for National Preparedness Month accepted by Ken Anderson, Sr., Emergency Services Manager.(Mark
Addiego, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Dated: August 24, 2016
NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH SEPTEMBER 2016
WHEREAS, this year’s theme is: “Don’t Wait. Communicate. Make Your
Emergency Plan Today” begins in September with a continuing emphasis on
preparedness for youth, older adults, and people with disabilities and others with access
and functional needs; and
WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month serves as a reminder that we all must
take action to prepare, now and throughout the year, for the types of emergencies that
could affect us where we live, work, and also where we visit; and
WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month creates an important opportunity for
every member of the City of South San Francisco community to prepare their homes,
businesses, and neighborhoods for any type of emergency including natural or human
caused disasters; and
WHEREAS, investing in preparing ourselves, our families, homes, and
businesses can reduce injuries, fatalities and economic devastation in our community and
in our nation; and
WHEREAS, the time and effort invested now to prepare will help you and your
family navigate through, and successfully recover from what can occur at any moment;
and
WHEREAS, in September, people from cities and towns from all corners of our
Nation will join with us to make a plan and participate in this important opportunity to
increase their own preparedness.
During National Preparedness Month, let us all renew our commitment to ready
ourselves, our families, and our communities for any challenge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that
September 2016 is recognized as
"NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH”
________________________________
Mark Addiego, Mayor
________________________________
Pradeep Gupta, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Richard Garbarino, Councilmember
________________________________
Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember
________________________________
Liza Normandy, Councilmember
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-730,Version:2
Report regarding the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report on Sanitary Districts and the City of South
San Francisco’s recommended response.(Brian Schumacker, Water Quality Control Plant Superintendent)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled,"San Mateo County’s
Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts"and approve by motion the response to the Civil Grand Jury with any
changes as directed by City Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The 2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury filed a report on June 29,2016 entitled,“San Mateo
County’s Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts”which contains one recommendation (R4 on page 48 of the
Grand Jury Report) pertaining to the City of South San Francisco.
The recommendation advised to “Form a committee of Board members (Westborough Water District),Council
members (Daly City,South San Francisco)and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services provided
by Westborough Water District into Daly City and/or South San Francisco.Evaluate alternatives and determine
the benefits to ratepayers.Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30,2017.Work with
California Water Service Company on this initiative.”
Staff has reviewed the recommendation and has prepared a response letter for City Council’s consideration
(Attachment 2).
In general,the response letter indicates the City of South San Francisco’s position is not in alignment with the
recommendation to assume the services currently being provided by Westborough Water District because:
1.The City of South San Francisco does not provide potable water service to its residents or businesses,
and is not a water utility.
2.Wastewater collection and treatment in the Westborough area would require significant capital
expenditures and infrastructure expansion.
3.Regulatory agencies would likely not approve Westborough's wastewater addition to the South San
Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (SSF-SB WQCP)because of the San Francisco Bay’s
assimilative capacity limitations.
The City of South San Francisco does not provide drinking water service to its residents or businesses.Potable
water service is provided mostly by California Water Service and in some areas by the Westborough Water
District.At this time,staff does not recommend that the City become a water utility and assuming this function
from the Westborough Water District.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-730,Version:2
The City of South San Francisco,in partnership with the City of San Bruno,owns and operates the SSF-SB
WQCP.There are no existing pipelines for conveying Westborough's wastewater to the SSF-SB WQCP.A
multi-million dollar capital infrastructure project would have to be completed to install and connect many miles
of transmission piping to the SSF-SB WQCP and to increase its treatment capacity.Connection and annual
service fees would be assessed on the 3,790 connections in Westborough to cover these costs.Staff believes
these endeavors would not be fiscally sound.
Wastewater from the Westborough Water District is currently treated by the North San Mateo County
Sanitation District in Daly City,who is an ocean discharger.The SSF-SB WQCP is a bay discharger,and from
a regulatory standpoint,the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan limits the amount of new pollutants that are allowed
to be discharged into San Francisco Bay.Even though the SSF-SB WQCP remains in compliance with rigid
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)discharge requirements,allowing additional
wastewater quantities to be piped to the SSF-SB WQCP may increase trace pollutants that contribute to
cumulative loadings into San Francisco Bay.It is likely that an extensive receiving water study would be
required by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to even consider adding
Westborough’s flows to the SSF-SB WQCP.These undertakings would also not be economically practical.
It is very likely that little or no financial benefit to the Westborough Water District rate payers would be
realized given capital costs, associated fees and regulatory limitations.
FUNDING
There would be no fiscal impact associated with responding to the Grand Jury.Future funding considerations
will be brought to the City Council in conjunction with implementation of any future recommendations from
the Grand Jury.
CONCLUSION
Staff will incorporate any changes to the draft response to the Grand Jury as directed by the City Council and
prepare the final letter for the Mayor’s signature.Staff will submit the response before the September 27,2016
deadline established by the Grand Jury.
Attachments:
1.SMC Civil Grand Jury Report
2.Draft Response Letter to the Grand Jury Report
3.Map of Independent San Mateo County Sanitary Districts
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
SAN MATEO COUNTY’S COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF SANITARY DISTRICTS
Issue | Executive Summary | Introduction | Glossary | Background | Discussion | Findings
Recommendations | Requests for Responses | Methodology | Bibliography | Appendixes | Responses
ISSUE
The 2015-2016 Grand Jury conducted an extensive investigation of a subset of the County’s
sewage collection agencies—six independent special districts—and determined that having many
small agencies presents problems in the areas of public accountability, fiscal responsibility, and
operational competence.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Grand Jury sought to determine whether the multiplicity of agencies focused on sewage
collection and treatment is efficient and beneficial for San Mateo County residents. Its
conclusion is that it is emphatically not. San Mateo’s cottage industry of sanitary districts fails in
three important ways—public accountability, fiscal responsibility, and operational competence.
The Grand Jury had neither the resources nor the time to conduct an investigation of all 45
agencies involved in sewage collection and treatment in the County. Instead, it focused on the six
independent districts, those with elected boards.
• Bayshore Sanitary District
• East Palo Alto Sanitary District
• Granada Community Services District
• Montara Water and Sanitary District
• Westborough Water District
• West Bay Sanitary District
The findings and recommendations are based on these six. The Grand Jury hopes that this
research will encourage additional discussion and analysis within the County on the challenges
identified. Many other County services that are provided to the residents are conducted by
similar uncoordinated, fragmented entities, including water, drainage (for storm water), highway
lighting, and fire and police services.
Public Accountability
Although the board members of each of the six independent sanitary districts are theoretically
accountable to the voters who elect them, in reality, the districts operate with virtually no public
oversight and the “elections” are nominal at best. Information about the districts is incomplete,
and the cost of service is obscured by the way it is calculated and billed. Their elected boards do
little to enhance accountability due to the electoral benefit of incumbency. Most elections are not
even contested. When they are, voter turnout is low. It is questionable whether most County
residents are able to identify their sewer system provider.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
Fiscal Responsibility
The Grand Jury found no evidence of financial improprieties but many opportunities for
overspending. Sewer rates are rising rapidly in most districts. Rates in San Mateo County are
generally higher than other Bay Area urban areas. Five of the six districts investigated by the
Grand Jury rely on property tax, although the intent of property tax is to provide funds for
services that cannot be allocated to a specific user, such as fire or parks.
The districts studied by the Grand Jury receive funds for collection and treatment, but
operationally they manage only sewage collection. A major portion of their budget is transferred
to the treatment plants, over which they may have some influence but not control. There is much
redundancy in having so many disparate districts—the Grand Jury identified overlap in board
costs, audit, legal, and other functions.
Operational Competence
Operational competence is difficult to judge. There is no “gold standard” of performance for
sanitary districts. Countywide, the sanitary districts (whether County-operated, city-operated,
or independent special districts) as a whole perform poorly on the primary performance metric
(sewer overflows) compared to their urban neighbors.
More specifically, the six independent districts, which are the focus of this report, are so small
that some have no employees at all, relying only on contractors. Many of the districts’ senior
staff interviewed by the Grand Jury seemed to be unaware of the technologies that have emerged
in the last 20 years to improve the reliability and safety of collection systems. Their systems are
old, yet plans to maintain and upgrade them are lacking. As the region’s sewage management
infrastructure ages, and capital investments become imperative, these districts put citizens at risk
of sharply increasing rates. The districts seem to be ill prepared to handle large-scale
emergencies impacting their systems, whether that is an earthquake, landslide, or flood. There
was no evidence that the districts plan for emergencies more serious than a call from the public
about odors or a sewer spill.
Recommendations
The Grand Jury’s highest priority recommendations include:
• The Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Granada
Community Services District, Montara Water & Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary
District, and Westborough Water District:
− Form committees with neighboring cities and sanitary districts to develop plans for
the consolidation and/or assumption of services provided by the district.
• Recognizing that this is likely to take some time, the Grand Jury recommends that in the
meantime, the Boards of the six independent sanitary districts:
− Improve information visibility on their websites. Implement and publish performance
management metrics.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
− Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers,
and the reliance on property tax is eliminated.
− Mail notices to ratepayers annually with an explanation of the amount of sewer
service charges being billed and the rationale. Include a notification of the elected
nature of the board, the role of board members, and the process for becoming
a candidate.
− Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors.
− Phase out all benefits for board directors over a period of time not to exceed
three years.
− Evaluate the benefit of changing the timing of board director elections to
November of even years.
− Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or
regional emergency.
• San Mateo Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCo)
− Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its
operations might be more efficient and effective if they were consolidated with
another entity’s operations.
The Grand Jury would have liked to recommend actions to address the County’s bigger problem
of lack of comprehensive oversight for its sewer collection and treatment systems. However, the
very lack of oversight makes it impossible to make any such recommendations.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ISSUE ................................................................................................................................. 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 1
Public Accountability ...................................................................................................... 1
Fiscal Responsibility ....................................................................................................... 2
Operational Competence ................................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 8
GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................... 8
Specific Agencies ............................................................................................................ 9
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 9
The Basics of Wastewater and Sewage ........................................................................... 9
Sewage Management: San Mateo County .................................................................... 10
Special Districts: Purpose and Dissolution .................................................................. 12
Urban Sewage Management ......................................................................................... 13
Service Area and History of Independent Sanitary Districts ........................................ 16
Sanitary Districts’ Contribution to Sewage Management ............................................ 19
Sanitary District Comparisons ..................................................................................... 20
Prior Grand Jury and LAFCo Studies of Sanitary Districts......................................... 21
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 22
Public Accountability .................................................................................................... 22
Information Transparency ......................................................................................... 22
Visibility of Rates ..................................................................................................... 24
Board Tenure ............................................................................................................ 25
Public Profile ............................................................................................................ 27
Fiscal Responsibility ..................................................................................................... 27
Property Tax Subsidies ............................................................................................. 28
High and Rising Rates .............................................................................................. 30
Handling of Treatment Costs .................................................................................... 31
Rationalizing Collection and Administration Expenses ........................................... 32
Board Compensation ................................................................................................. 34
Redundant Activities ................................................................................................. 37
Operational Competence .............................................................................................. 39
No Gold Standard ..................................................................................................... 39
Age of Pipelines ........................................................................................................ 39
Sanitary Sewer Overflows ........................................................................................ 40
Dependence on Contractors ...................................................................................... 42
Use of Technologies ................................................................................................. 44
Emergency Preparedness .......................................................................................... 46
FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 46
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 47
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES ...................................................................................... 49
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 50
Documents..................................................................................................................... 50
Interviews ...................................................................................................................... 50
Site Visits ....................................................................................................................... 50
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 51
Bayshore Sanitary District ............................................................................................ 51
East Palo Alto Sanitary District ................................................................................... 51
Granada Sanitary District ............................................................................................ 52
Montara Water and Sanitary District ........................................................................... 53
West Bay Sanitary District ............................................................................................ 54
Westborough Water District ......................................................................................... 55
Election Results ............................................................................................................. 55
Bay Area Sewer Agencies ............................................................................................. 57
Other ............................................................................................................................. 58
APPENDIX A: SEWER PROVIDERS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY ........................ 60
APPENDIX B: URBAN SEWER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES ............................. 62
System Characteristics of Major Bay Area Sewer Providers ....................................... 62
Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Major Bay Area Sewer Providers ................................. 64
Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Hundred Miles of Pipeline ........................................... 64
APPENDIX C: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING INDEPENDENT
SANITARY DISTRICTS ............................................................................................... 65
APPENDIX D: SEWAGE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BY DISTRICT .......... 66
APPENDIX E: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS BY DISTRICT BY YEAR ... 68
APPENDIX F: AGE PROFILE OF DISTRICT PIPELINES .................................... 69
APPENDIX G: SANITARY DISTRICT BUDGETS .................................................. 70
Budget for FY 2015-2016.............................................................................................. 70
Budget for FY 2014-2015.............................................................................................. 72
Budget for Bayshore Sanitary District .......................................................................... 74
Budget for Westborough Water District ....................................................................... 75
Budget for Montara Water and Sanitary District ......................................................... 76
Budget for Granada Community Services District ....................................................... 77
Budget for East Palo Alto Sanitary District ................................................................. 78
Budget for West Bay Sanitary District .......................................................................... 79
APPENDIX H: SANITARY DISTRICT BUDGET ANALYSIS FY 2015-2016 ...... 80
APPENDIX I: SANITARY DISTRICT SEWER RATES .......................................... 81
Payment Method and Calculation ................................................................................ 81
Sewer Rates and Growth—Independent Districts......................................................... 82
Sewer Rates and Growth—County-Managed Districts ................................................ 84
Sewer Rates and Growth—Combined ........................................................................... 85
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
APPENDIX J: BOARD COSTS FOR SANITARY DISTRICTS .............................. 86
APPENDIX K: DIRECTOR TENURE BY DISTRICT ............................................. 87
APPENDIX L: REFERENCES TO “DISASTER” OR “EMERGENCY” IN BOARD
MEETING MINUTES.................................................................................................... 90
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: System Characteristics of Major Bay Area Sewer Providers ............................. 13
Table 2: Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Hundred Miles of Pipeline by Bay Area Sewer Providers
................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 3: District Establishment Date, Communities Served, and Other Areas of Responsibility
................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 4: Treatment Plants Serving Independent Districts ................................................ 20
Table 5: Population, Connections, Pipe Length, and Budgeted Revenue for Independent Districts
................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 6: Key Information Availability on District Websites ............................................ 23
Table 7: Contested and Uncontested Elections in Sanitary Districts ................................ 26
Table 8: Turnout for 2013 Sanitary District Elections ...................................................... 26
Table 9: Length of Service of Board Directors ................................................................. 27
Table 10: Sanitary Sewer Rates and Growth .................................................................... 31
Table 11: Board of Director Benefits by District .............................................................. 36
Table 12: Cost Impact of Multiple Small Districts ........................................................... 37
Table 13: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District .............................................................. 40
Table 14: Use of Contractors by Function in Independent Sanitary Districts .................. 43
Table 15: Use of Operational and Planning & Control Technologies by District ............ 45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sewage Treatment Laterals and Mains ............................................................... 9
Figure 2: Map of Entities in San Mateo County Handling Sewage .................................. 11
Figure 3: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Year for West Bay Sanitary District ................. 15
Figure 4: Map of Independent Sanitary Districts in San Mateo County........................... 17
Figure 5: Sewage Mains and Wastewater Treatment ....................................................... 19
Figure 6: Miles of Pipeline by District ............................................................................. 20
Figure 7: Property Tax Bill Reflecting Sanitary Sewer Charge ....................................... 25
Figure 8: Property Tax Contribution to Total Revenue .................................................... 28
Figure 9: Impact of Property Tax in Reducing Sewer Rate .............................................. 30
Figure 10: Treatment Expense and Capital’s Share of Revenue ...................................... 32
Figure 11: Operating Expense Split between Collection and Administration/Finance .... 33
Figure 12: Collection Expense per Mile of Pipeline ......................................................... 34
Figure 13: Meeting Compensation for Directors .............................................................. 35
Figure 14: Annual Board Compensation per Director ...................................................... 36
Figure 15: Economies of Scale in Professional Services .................................................. 37
Figure 16: Pipeline Age by District .................................................................................. 40
Figure 17: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Year ................................................................. 41
Figure 18: Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Mile of Pipe .................................................... 42
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
INTRODUCTION
This report addresses the proliferation of sewer providers in San Mateo County. It is organized
into three main sections—background, discussion, and findings and recommendations. In
addition, there are sections that cover the glossary of frequently used terms, describe the
methodology, list the many source materials used by the Grand Jury (bibliography), and contain
data referenced in the report (the appendices).
GLOSSARY
• Collection: The gathering of sanitary waste from a point of connection to the point where
it enters treatment.
• Connection: The point where private pipes carrying sanitary waste merge into the public
system of pipelines.
• Effective Utility Management. A process for water and wastewater utilities to identify
and address management needs. It includes metrics within 10 categories such as product
quality, customer satisfaction, financial viability, and operational resiliency. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency and six associations representing the United
States water and wastewater sectors developed it.1
• Forced Main: Pipes through which sanitary waste is pumped. They are typically required
in hilly areas where sewage must be pumped uphill.
• Gravity Pipe: Pipes in which sanitary waste flows by gravity.
• Lateral Pipe: The pipe from a sanitary waste generator (such as a single family
residence) to a public connection.
• Linear Asset Management Plan: A dynamic planning tool that uses a numerical risk
model to assign a risk score to every pipe segment. The plan is used to prioritize
maintenance and refurbishment activities.2
• Sanitary Sewer Charge: The cost to ratepayers for the collection and treatment of the
sewage they generate.
• Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO): A condition in which untreated sewage is discharged
from a sanitary sewer into the environment prior to reaching sewage treatment facilities.3
• Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA): A system for remote monitoring
and control that operates with coded signals over communication channels.4
• Treatment: The processing of sanitary waste, separating solids from water.
1 The six associations are: the American Public Works Association, the American Water Works Association, the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National
Association of Water Companies, and the Water Environment Federation. WaterEUM, About the Effective Utility
Management Collaborative Effort. http://www.watereum.org.
2 V. W. Housen, Linear Asset Management Plan, West Bay Sanitary District, February 2016, p. 1-1.
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer_overflow.
4 Wikipedia entry for SCADA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCADA.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
Specific Agencies
• California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA)
• California Special Districts Association (CSDA)
• California Water Environment Association (CWEA)
• Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
BACKGROUND
The Basics of Wastewater and Sewage
Wastewater is water whose quality has been adversely affected by human activity.5 Wastewater
can originate from homes, industries, commercial activity, agriculture, surface runoff, storm
water, or infiltration of fresh water into sewage systems.
The wastewater that originates from homes and businesses is commonly called sewage and is
carried in sanitary sewer pipes. Sewage is collected from its source and then travels to a
treatment plant. This distinction between collection and treatment is important for
understanding the activities of sanitary districts.
Along the way, sewage first passes through indoor plumbing, before it flows into private
building laterals as shown in Figure 1. In most cases, there is a cleanout close to the property
line. This cleanout typically represents the border between what the homeowner (for example) is
responsible for and where the sewage enters the public sewer main.
Figure 1: Sewage Treatment Laterals and Mains
Source: City of Eureka, Wastewater Collection, Accessed May
6, 2016. http://ci.eureka.ca.gov/depts/pw/wastewater/default.asp.
5 Wikipedia entry for wastewater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastewater.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
Sewage flows through sewer mains (often called pipes or pipelines) by gravity or pumping.
Gravity does not work if the sewage must flow uphill to reach the treatment plant. In these cases,
pumps are required, along with forced mains, which are pipes that are under pressure because
their contents are moving uphill. Because the primary job of sanitary districts is pipe
maintenance, this report will often speak of the length of pipe, which will mean both gravity and
forced mains unless specified otherwise.
Eventually the sewage reaches a treatment plant. Along the way, the sewer mains pick up
wastewater from other homes, businesses, and factories. This report will use the term sewage to
refer to the primary wastewater streams produced in San Mateo County.
Sewage Management: San Mateo County
The collection of sewage in San Mateo County is handled by 36 agencies (including County and
city sewage collection systems in addition to the six independent sanitary districts).6 This is
largely a legacy of the County’s origins as a rural backwater to San Francisco. Few of these
agencies treat the waste; instead, there are nine treatment plants operated by cities or joint
powers agencies, with whom the districts contract to provide this service.
The four major types of districts handling sewage collection are visible in the map (see Figure 2).
The County-managed districts are in yellow, and the independent districts in green. The city-
operated systems are shown in pink, and the subsidiary districts are in orange.
6 See Appendix A: Sewer Providers in San Mateo County.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
Figure 2: Map of Entities in San Mateo County Handling Sewage
Source: San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
Special Districts: Purpose and Dissolution
According to LAFCo of San Mateo County, “A special district is an agency of the State formed
under general law or a special legislative act to provide governmental services such as sewer,
water, fire protection, recreation, healthcare, police protection, mosquito and vector control, and
other services. There are three main types of special districts:
• County-governed special districts are administered by the Board of Supervisors
and are operated by the County of San Mateo.
• Independent special districts have locally elected board members and their
own employees.
• Subsidiary special districts are governed by their respective city councils.”7
San Mateo County has sanitary districts that fall into all three types. There are ten County-
governed special districts, the largest being the Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District. There are
six independent special districts, the focus of this report. There are also subsidiary special
districts governed by city councils, such as North San Mateo County Sanitation District. The
number of districts and the complexity of the relationships among them make it difficult to grasp
their scope, activities, and performance.
The process for dissolving a district is authorized by State law and processed by LAFCo
accordingly. LAFCo can initiate dissolution and consolidation as can the County, a city, a special
district, school district, registered voters, or landowners. LAFCo operates “in the context of State
policies that favor multipurpose agencies or regional agencies over several layers of limited
purpose agencies, particularly in urban areas.”8 LAFCo must first assess the district’s sphere of
influence.9 If LAFCo determines that the district has a zero sphere of influence, other cities or
districts are in a position to take over the responsibilities of the district, to the benefit of the
County’s residents. Once LAFCo has declared that a district has a zero sphere of influence, it has
the authority to initiate proposals that include dissolution or consolidation.
Dissolution of any special district is a complex undertaking. Entities that can assume the
activities of the dissolving district must be identified. The political will to take on the challenge
of proponents of the district must be present. Methodologies must be developed to apportion any
property tax previously allocated to the district. These obstacles mean that not all LAFCo
recommendations to consolidate or dissolve districts lead to changes.
7 San Mateo Local Area Formation Commission, Special Districts in San Mateo County, Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/special-districts-san-mateo-county.
8 Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer, San Mateo LAFCo, Letter re Municipal Service Review and Sphere of
Influence Update for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, February 17, 2009, p. 2.
9 “A sphere of influence is a planning boundary outside of an agency’s legal boundary (such as the city limit line)
that designates the agency’s probable future boundary and service area. Factors considered in a sphere of influence
review focus on the current and future land use, the current and future need and capacity for service, and any
relevant communities of interest.” Source: California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, “What
Is LAFCo.” http://www.calafco.org/about.htm.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
Urban Sewage Management
Most urban areas in California have a single large sewage collection and treatment provider (see
Table 1). For example, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland each have a single agency that
handles both sewage collection and treatment. In total population and miles of sewer mains San
Mateo County is similar to San Jose and San Francisco. However, a large, centrally managed
agency is not only the norm for individual big cities. The Central Contra Costa County Sanitary
District covers 13 East Bay cities from Martinez to San Ramon.
Table 1: System Characteristics of Major Bay Area Sewer Providers
Population Forced
Mains
(Miles)
Gravity
Mains
(Miles)
Residential
Rate ($ /
Year)a
San Mateo County 765,135 104.4 1,898 $902b
San Jose City 998,537 13.0 2,268 $405
Central Contra Costa 476,400 23.0 1,519 $471
San Franciscoc 864,816 1,000 $187
Oakland 406,253 0.2 920 $705
Sources: See Appendix B: Urban Sewer Management Agencies.
Notes:
aThese rates came from the respective sewer providers’ websites. They do not include other
potential forms of income or revenue such as property taxes, bond income, or permit fees.
bCounty and independent districts only; excludes rates charged by cities. This is the average
rate ranging from $360 for Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District to $1,595 for
Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District.
cData on Forced Mains not available.
The complexity of discussing rates in San Mateo County will be covered later in this report.
Nonetheless, the rates charged to residences in San Mateo County appear to be higher than those
charged by other large urban areas.
San Mateo County agencies lag on the primary measure of sewer system performance, known as
the sanitary sewer overflow (SSO).10 A sanitary sewer overflow occurs when untreated sewage is
discharged from a sewer pipe into the environment prior to reaching sewage treatment facilities.
Frequent causes of SSOs include:
• Blockage of sewer lines
• Infiltration of storm water into sewer lines during heavy rainfall
• Malfunction of pumping station lifts or electrical power failure
• Broken sewer lines 11
10 See Appendix E: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District by Year.
11 Wikipedia entry for sanitary sewer overflow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer_overflow.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
SSOs vary in severity depending on the volume of material released and whether the untreated
sewage reached a water source. SSOs by law must be reported to the California Environmental
Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board.12 Overflows contaminate drinking
water and cause thousands of cases of gastrointestinal illness in the United States each year,13
resulting in beach closures, swimming restrictions, prohibitions on shellfish harvesting, and
fish kills.
Countywide, the sanitary districts in San Mateo County collectively have significantly more
sanitary sewer overflows than the other large urban areas in the San Francisco Bay Area (see
Table 2). They have twice as many as San Jose, and nearly three times as many as Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District. San Mateo County agencies have no centralized oversight over sewer
management, so have no obvious method to address this problem.
Table 2: Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Hundred Miles of Pipeline
by Bay Area Sewer Providers
2013 2014 2015 Average As %age of SMC
San Mateo County 9.3 11.9 7.7 9.6 100%
San Jose City 5.5 4.4 3.2 4.4 45%
Central Contra Costa 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.0 31%
Oakland 9.1 10.8 9.3 9.7 101%
Sources: See Appendix B: Urban Sewer Management Agencies.
Note: San Francisco operates a combined sewer and storm water system and is therefore not required to
report sanitary sewer overflows to the State Water Resources Control Board.
The high level of overflows in San Mateo County is not the inevitable result of aging
infrastructure, although that is a risk factor for overflows. Professional and proactive
management of the infrastructure is critical. A good illustration of this can be found at West Bay
Sanitary District, where 58% of its pipelines were installed before 1960 and 24% were installed
before 1940.14 Its performance on sanitary sewer overflows in the late 2000s was poor.
Experienced management, proactive assessment of its system, thoughtful prioritization of its
capital projects, use of new technologies, and programs to reduce blockages have reduced SSOs
from the rate of 50 to 60 per year to 5 to 15 (see Figure 3).15
12 “To provide a consistent, statewide regulatory approach to address SSOs, the State Water Resources Control
Board (State Water Board) adopted Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Sanitary Sewer
Systems, Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer
Systems WDR requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer
system management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database.” Source: State of
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, Sanitary Sewer Overflow
Reduction Program. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml.
13 Wikipedia entry for sanitary sewer overflow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitary_sewer_overflow.
14 See Appendix F: Age Profile of District Pipelines.
15 Officials from West Bay Sanitary District: interview by the Grand Jury.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
Figure 3: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Year for West Bay Sanitary District
Source: Appendix E: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District by Year.
Note: West Bay reported 68 SSOs in 2007 in a data submission to the Grand Jury, although the California
Water Board recorded only 46.
There can be adverse consequences to mismanaging sewer systems. On April 10, 2008, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency “issued enforcement actions requiring nine sewage collection
systems in the Sausalito and Mill Valley areas of southern Marin County, Calif., to address
chronic sewage spills, improve sewer maintenance and implement long-term programs to renew
aging sewer pipes.”16
In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the settlement of a case against
seven municipalities in the East Bay Municipal Utility District. According to a news release
issued on March 15, 2011, “the seven municipalities . . . have cooperatively agreed to update
aging infrastructure and collection systems that have been major contributors to overflows.”17
This initiative eventually resulted in a consent decree issued in June 2014, requiring the affected
communities to spend $300 million over a 22-year period to upgrade their sewer collection and
treatment facilities.18
Closer to home, the City of San Mateo, Hillsborough, and the Crystal Springs County Sanitation
District were ordered “to cease and desist discharging waste from their respective sanitary sewer
systems in violation of requirements” by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in
16 United States Environmental Protection Agency, News Releases from Region 9, US EPA Orders Marin County
Sewage Collection Systems to Address Chronic Sewage Spills, April 8, 2008.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/503212C4814C8FF585257427006B9568.
17 United States Environmental Protection Agency, News Releases from Region 9, Bay Area Municipalities Ordered
to Protect San Francisco Bay from Sewer Discharges, March 15, 2011.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/c221b52e5e4823d58525785300718f88?OpenDocument.
18 City of Oakland, Landmark Clean Water Agreement, Regional East Bay Sewer Consent Decree 2014, Accessed
May 1, 2016. http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/s/Sewer/ConsentDecree/index.htm.
01020304050607080
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
2009.19 San Mateo’s Daily Journal reported in its March 14, 2016, issue that the cost of the
associated overhaul is $770 million over 10 years.20 This translates to a cost of $5,923 per person
in the affected area.21
Service Area and History of Independent Sanitary Districts
The Bayshore Sanitary District is at the north end of the County, with Westborough nearby
(see Figure 4). Montara and Granada border each other on the coast side of the County.
Similarly, West Bay and East Palo Alto adjoin each other, at the south end of the County.
19 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Cease and Desist Order No. R2-
2009-0020, March 11, 2009, p. 1.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2009/R2-2009-0020.pdf.
20 Samantha Weigel, “Sewer Overhaul to Cost $770M, San Mateo Launching Improvement Program for Thousands
of Customers,” Daily Journal, March 14, 2016.
21 The population served by San Mateo’s sewer system is 130,000 according to the San Mateo Sewer System
Management Plan, dated December 7, 2015, p. 4. http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47516.
Dividing $770,000,000 by 130,000 yields $5,923 per person. A more accurate calculation would use number of
connections rather than population to estimate the cost to households of this capital plan, but connection data was
not available through website research.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
Figure 4: Map of Independent Sanitary Districts in San Mateo County
Source: San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
The six independent sanitary districts have a long history (see Table 3). They were established
over the course of six decades in response to population growth in San Mateo County. For
example, a subdivision developer in South San Francisco founded the most recently established
district, Westborough, in 1961. Some districts are responsible for more than just collecting
sewage. Montara and Westborough also provide drinking water, while Granada recently added
parks and recreation to its scope. Three of the districts provide garbage collection services within
their districts. These other missions have little synergy with the core mission of sewage
collection, although they do allow the sharing of some costs, such as board expenses.
Table 3: District Establishment Date, Communities Served,
and Other Areas of Responsibility
District Date
Founded
Communities Served Other Areas of
Responsibility
West Bay
Sanitary District
1902 City of Menlo Park, Atherton, and
Portola Valley, and areas of East Palo
Alto, Woodside and unincorporated San
Mateo and Santa Clara counties
Solid Wastea
Bayshore
Sanitary District
1925 Portions of Daly City and Brisbane None
East Palo Alto
Sanitary District
1939 City of East Palo Alto and portion of
Menlo Park
None
Granada
Community
Services District
1958 Unincorporated areas of El Granada,
Princeton, Princeton-by-the-Sea, Clipper
Ridge, and Miramar; northern portion
of the City of Half Moon Bay
Solid Waste, Parks
& Recreation (since
2014)
Montara Water &
Sanitary District
1958 Montara, Moss Beach Solid Waste, Water
(since 2003)
Westborough
Water District
1961 South San Francisco west of 280 to
Skyline Boulevard and South of King
Drive in Daly City to San Bruno
Water
Source: District websites.
Note:
aSolid waste includes the pickup and disposal of trash, recyclables, and compostable materials. This activity is
typically subcontracted via multi-year contracts.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
Sanitary Districts’ Contribution to Sewage Management
All the independent districts are responsible for the collection but not the treatment of sewage.
In Figure 5 below, they are responsible for the red line labeled “Sewer Main.” Customers are
responsible for the black “Customer Collection Line” and orange “Lateral.”
Figure 5: Sewage Mains and Wastewater Treatment
Source: Hi-Desert Water District, Wastewater Reclamation Project, http://protectgroundwater.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Wastewater-treatment-system-graphic.jpg. Sewage in San Mateo County
discharges either into the Bay or into the Pacific Ocean.
The districts rely on different treatment plants for waste treatment depending on their location
(see Table 4). Bayshore, East Palo Alto, and Westborough Districts rely on neighboring cities’
waste treatment plants (San Francisco, Palo Alto, and Daly City respectively). Granada and
Montara Districts, along with the City of Half Moon Bay, own the Sewer Authority Mid-
Coastside (SAM) treatment plant. West Bay, along with the Cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and
Redwood City, has a similar arrangement, owning but not operating Silicon Valley Clean Water
treatment plant. Districts that share ownership also share a portion of the treatment plants’ capital
costs to cover both replacements and improvements. The treatment plants are typically governed
by boards composed of members from the city councils or independent sanitary districts that
own them.
Managing its relationship with its treatment plant is a high priority to the independent districts, as
it is to the city-managed districts that do not operate their own treatment plants.22 This is true
partly because a significant component of their budget is allocated to treatment, as will be
described later. It is also true because the plans and programs of the treatment plants can end up
impacting sewage collection.
22 The County of San Mateo, as operator of ten sewer districts, is not party to any of the treatment plant Joint
Powers Agreements. The County purchases capacity from nearby cities and pays to wheel the effluent through the
city sewer mains.
Sewer Main
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 20
Table 4: Treatment Plants Serving Independent Districts
Treatment Plant Independent
District
Other Cities Served by
Treatment Plant
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Southeast Treatment Plant
Bayshore San Francisco
North San Mateo County Sanitation District,
which contracts with City of Daly City
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Westborough Daly City
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) Granada,
Montara
Half Moon Bay
Silicon Valley Clean Water West Bay Belmont, Redwood City, San
Carlos
Regional Water Quality Control Plant
(Palo Alto)
East Palo Alto Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Stanford
Source: See Appendix C: Wastewater Treatment Plants Serving Independent Sanitary Districts.
Sanitary District Comparisons
The independent districts oversee small collection systems (see Figure 6). The six districts
include about 15% of the County’s population and manage 343 miles of pipeline, or
approximately 17% of the County’s total. West Bay’s system is significantly larger than the
remaining five districts’ systems taken altogether.
Figure 6: Miles of Pipeline by District
Source: See Appendix D: Sewage System Characteristics by District.
0.0 25.0 50.0 75.0 100.0 125.0 150.0 175.0 200.0BayshoreWestboroughMontaraGranadaEast Palo AltoWest Bay
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 21
It is tempting to discount these districts as being inconsequential. Their budgets however are
substantial (see Table 5).
Table 5: Population, Connections, Pipe Length, and Budgeted Revenue
for Independent Districts
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Population (#) 4,513 14,050 6,012 6,000 29,000 55,000
Connections (#) 1,456 3,790 1,937 2,560 3,864 20,000
Pipeline (Miles) 16.0 20.7 29.5 34.0 35.0 208.0
2015-16 Budgeted
Revenue (Million $)
$1.280 $2.523 $2.690 $2.524 $4.915 $23.750
Sources: See Appendix D: Sewage System Characteristics by District and Appendix G: Sanitary
District Budgets.
For the rest of this report, the districts will be listed on the basis of their size as measured by the
length of pipelines they operate—with Bayshore the smallest, followed by Westborough,
Montara, Granada, East Palo Alto, and West Bay.
Prior Grand Jury and LAFCo Studies of Sanitary Districts
The San Mateo County Grand Jury has investigated only one of these districts in the last 15
years. The 2002-2003 Grand Jury released a report with the results of an investigation into the
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. One of the main recommendations was that the district be
merged with another district, specifically West Bay Sanitary District. The East Palo Alto
Sanitary District disagreed; consolidation did not happen.
LAFCo conducts municipal service reviews of districts on a periodic basis. Its recent
studies include:
• September 16, 2015: North County Cities and Special Districts, including Bayshore
Sanitary District
− “Reaffirm a zero sphere of influence for the Bayshore Sanitary District, indicating
the District should be dissolved and the Cities of Brisbane and Daly City would
become ‘successor agencies.’” 23
• February 17, 2009: East Palo Alto Sanitary District
− “The LAFCo adopted sphere of influence designation for the EPASD is for
dissolution and annexation of the territory to WBSD.” 24
23 San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, North County Cities & Special Districts, Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Study, September 16, 2015, p 79.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/North%20County%20MSR%20-%209-16-15_3.pdf.
24 Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, Municipal Service
Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the East Palo Alto Sanitary District, February 17, 2009, p. 17.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/msrepasdfinalwithattachments_0.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 22
• February 12, 2009: West Bay Sanitary District
− “Based on information in the municipal service review and absence of significant
changes since the sphere was adopted that merit amendment to the sphere of
influence, it is recommended that the WBSD sphere be reaffirmed as adopted in
1985.”25
• October 7, 2008: City of Half Moon Bay and Unincorporated Midcoast, including
Granada Sanitary District and Montara Water and Sanitary District
− LAFCO recommended “a single regional water and sewer district to serve the
unincorporated and incorporated study area delineated by the urban/rural
boundary.”26 It assigned spheres of consolidation to Montara Water and Sanitary
District, Granada Sanitary District (as it was named then), and Coastside County
Water District. These sphere designations would allow for consolidation of Montara
Water and Sanitary District with Granada Sanitary District, and formation of the
Midcoast Community Services District to add Park and Recreation to existing
services of water, sewer, and solid waste disposal.
In summary, LAFCo recommended the consolidation of Granada Sanitary District and Montara
Water and Sanitary District in October 2008, and the dissolution of Bayshore and East Palo Alto
Sanitary Districts in 2009.
DISCUSSION
The Grand Jury’s analysis focused on three issues: public accountability, fiscal responsibility,
and operational competence.
Public Accountability
Information Transparency
Seeking data from the independent sanitary districts for comparative purposes is challenging.
Each district has its own website, and the layouts differ. The most basic data—meeting
minutes, budgets, rates, financial audits, and sewer system management plans—is often
missing or outdated. Table 6 highlights the gaps (shaded) in core information for each of
the six districts studied.
For example, the Grand Jury would expect the minutes of each board meeting to be reviewed and
approved at the following board meeting, and then posted within days thereafter (the “Goal” for
Meeting Minutes). In late April, the Grand Jury checked the websites of each independent
25 San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence
Update, West Bay Sanitary District, February 12, 2009, p. 17.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/MSRwestbaysanitaryfebruary_0.pdf.
26 Martha Poyatos, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission, Sphere of
Influence Update, City of Half Moon Bay and Unincorporated Midcoast, October 7, 2008, p. 12.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/2008_10_08_lafco_soicoastsideoct7wattachme
nts_1.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 23
district and learned that only Westborough and West Bay had minutes for the March meeting
posted. East Palo Alto and Bayshore had minutes from the February meeting posted, while
Granada’s dated from the January meeting. Montara’s minutes are embedded in the Agenda
Packets for meetings, which requires searching Agenda Packets to find whether minutes for a
prior meeting have been included. Relative to the “Goal” of having meeting minutes posted
through March 2016, only Westborough and West Bay met the standard.
The State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ requires Sewer System
Management Plans. In spite of this order, only two districts had readily available documents on
their website.27
Table 6: Key Information Availability on District Websites
Times Goala Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Meeting
Minutes
Through
March
2016
No Yes No No No Yes
Minute
History
2010 On Yes Yes Nob No Yes Yes
Budget 2015-2016 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Rates Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Rate History 2010 On No No No No No Yes
Financial
Audit
2015 Yes Yes Yes No No Yes
Sewer System
Management
Plan
2011 On Yes No No No No Yes
Performance
Metrics
2014-
2015
No No No No No Yes
Sewer System
Overflows
Current No No No No No No
Sources: District websites as of April 29, 2016.
Notes: Some districts updated their websites after April 29, 2016 following Grand Jury queries regarding
information availability.
aGoal established by Grand Jury based on timely information availability.
bMontara’s minutes are embedded in agenda packets, requiring a search through multiple packets to locate
a specific meeting’s minutes.
27 State Water Resources Control Board, Order No. 2006-2003-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, May 2, 2006, p. 2.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 24
The information that is available is structured differently. Each district has its own methodology
for preparing and presenting budgets even though the activities of each are roughly comparable.
The Grand Jury developed a process to convert each of the six district’s budgets to a common
and therefore comparable format that was then confirmed with each district.28
Visibility of Rates
Sewer rates are difficult to compile, even for residential single-family dwellings: 29
• Districts have the freedom to develop a unique rate structure. For example, Bayshore,
Westborough, and Montara have a rate per unit of water consumed during winter months.
Each customer pays a unique amount.30 These districts may lose revenue from water
conservation efforts and trends towards drought tolerant gardens that reduce water usage
but have limited impact on sewage collection and treatment costs.
• The other districts (Granada, East Palo Alto, and West Bay) establish a fixed rate for each
type of user (single family residential, multi-family residential, restaurant, etc.). As a
result of these differences, it is nearly impossible to compare the average customer’s bill
between Granada and Montara, two neighboring districts.
• Historical information on average customer bills is very difficult to locate, especially for
those who charge based on water consumption.
In addition, residents of the independent districts are billed through a line item on their property
tax statement, which means that many people are unaware of the cost of their sewer service (see
Figure 7). This West Bay Sanitary District customer has a $973 charge for “West Bay Sani Dist”
on its 2015-2016 tax bill.
28 See Appendix G: Sanitary District Budgets.
29 See Appendix I: Sanitary District Sewer Rates.
30 For ease of comparison, this report uses the term rate to refer to both the fixed annual charge as well as the
average customer bill calculated from water usage.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 25
Figure 7: Property Tax Bill Reflecting Sanitary Sewer Charge
Source: Grand Juror
Board Tenure
The districts state that having elected board members gives them an important link to the
community.31 Unfortunately, based on the general trend of uncontested elections, the
communities in which they operate appear to have little interest in the elections (see Table 7).
Uncontested elections are those in which the number of candidates are the same or less than the
number of openings. These elections are not placed on the ballot, and the candidates are
automatically approved. Contested elections are those in which the contest is placed on the ballot
and the public votes. Sixty-five percent of elections in the last eight election cycles were
uncontested for the independent sanitary districts.
31 Officials from independent sanitary districts: interviews by the Grand Jury.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 26
Two of the districts, Bayshore and Westborough, have not had contested elections since
2000. West Bay has not had a contested election in over 10 years. This suggests that public
participation in the selection is minimal. The only district with regularly contested ballots is East
Palo Alto.
Table 7: Contested and Uncontested Elections in Sanitary Districts
District 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Bayshore
Westborough
Montara
Granada
East Palo Alto
West Bay
Uncontested
Contested
Deferreda
Source: Data provided by the San Mateo County Elections website, shapethefuture.org as well as Elections
division staff. See Appendix K: Director Tenure by District for detailed sources.
Note: aGranada and Montara chose to change their election years to even-numbered years, so deferred 2015
elections to 2016.
Even in those instances where elections are contested, the turnout is low. Turnout for the
most recently contested elections, in 2013, was less than a quarter of the registered voters
(see Table 8).
Table 8: Turnout for 2013 Sanitary District Elections
Percentage of Registered Voters
Montara 25.9%
Granada 24.0%
East Palo Alto 14.1%
Source: San Mateo County Elections website, shapethefuture.org.
There is an important danger resulting from this. Ratepayers are responsible to support rates
that allow for necessary capital improvements. In a small district, with few active voters, it is
possible for a very few people to influence decisions on topics such as rates. In the last elections
in 2013 in Montara and Granada, the winners were separated from the losers by 111 and 15
votes respectively.32
With these conditions, board turnover is low. The average tenure of the board members on all
six boards is over 10 years (see Table 9). Since the membership term is four years on all boards,
this means that the average board member is serving on his or her third term. There is value in
having experience on any board, but there is also the risk of resistance to new ideas.
32 San Mateo County, Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District
Election, November 5, 2013. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2013/nov/official/Nov2013SOV.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 27
Table 9: Length of Service of Board Directors
Average Length of Service in Years Longest Length of Service in Years
Bayshore 16.6 23.3
Westborough 13.8 26.6
Montara 8.6 12.6
Granada 9.7 18.6
East Palo Alto 9.0 12.6
West Bay 6.8 16.6
Source: See Appendix K: Director Tenure by District.
Note: Measured as of June 30, 2016.
Public Profile
Districts have minimal interaction with the public compared to, for example, water districts. Bills
are not established based on a metering of sewage, so customers have few reasons to question the
billed amount. Customers do not start and stop sewer service as they do with other utilities.
Customers do not have drought-related sewer budgets.
A survey commissioned by the East Palo Alto Sanitary District in 2012 illustrates the point. They
learned that 38% of residential respondents stated they were familiar with the district. However,
only two thirds of these realized that it provides sewer services.33 Only eight out of 500
residential property owners surveyed and none of the 100 commercial property owners surveyed
knew the district sewer rate.34
The Grand Jury suspects that East Palo Alto is not unique and that most independent sanitary
district customers could not name their sanitary sewer provider.
Fiscal Responsibility
The districts receive revenue from four primary sources:
• Property Tax: Five of the six independent districts receive property tax.
• Sewer Service Charges: These charges are paid through a line item on property tax bills.
• Permit and Connection Fees: The districts collect modest amounts of money in permit
and connection fees .35 Developers and others connecting to the system for the first time
or upgrading a connection pay these fees.
• Interest on Reserves: The districts collect minimal amounts of interest on the money they
hold in their reserves.
33 Jatelo Productions, East Palo Alto Sanitary District Public Relations Plan, November 7, 2013, p. 104.
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=324.
34 Ibid., p. 110.
35 Bayshore, Montara, and West Bay budgeted between $5,000 and $50,000 in permit fees in FY 2015-2016. All
districts except Westborough collected connection fees in the $14,000 to $50,000 range except Montara, which
budgeted for over $300,000 in FY 2015-2016. Montara recently expanded opportunities for new sewer connections,
which is what is driving this unusually large amount. See Appendix G for detail.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 28
This report focuses on Property Tax and Sewer Service Charges, since they constitute more than
80% of the total income of the independent sanitary districts.
Property Tax Subsidies
The contribution of property tax to the districts’ revenue is meaningful, particularly for Bayshore
and Granada (see Figure 8).
All independent districts except West Bay were funded through property tax prior to the passage
of Proposition 13. As a result, they continue to receive a share of the property tax collected by
San Mateo County from all County residents. Although it received property taxes in earlier
years, West Bay did not receive property tax funding in fiscal year 1977-1978, and as a result of
Proposition 13 and its subsequent enabling legislation, the district continues not to receive any
property taxes.36
Figure 8: Property Tax Contribution to Total Revenue
Source: See Appendix H: Sanitary District Budget Analysis FY 2015-2016.
Notes: Granada’s relatively large portion of revenue due to Permit & Connection Fees is
a result of a repayment of monies advanced to the Assessment District. Montara’s large
portion is due to the processing of a backlog of connection requests.
36 The County Controller’s Office was unable to determine the reason that West Bay received no property tax in
1977-1978 although it confirmed that it had received property tax in some prior years.
0%20%40%60%80%100%Bayshore
Westborough
Montara
Granada
East Palo Alto
West Bay
Sewer Service ChargesProperty TaxPermit & ConnectionFeesInterest on Reserves
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 29
One of the goals of Proposition 13 was to eliminate property tax for government-provided
services for which the customer could be charged directly. California Government Code
Section 16270 states:
The Legislature finds and declares that many special districts have the ability to raise
revenue through user charges and fees and that their ability to raise revenue directly from
the property tax for district operations has been eliminated by Article XIIIA of the
California Constitution. It is the intent of the Legislature that such districts rely on user
fees and charges for raising revenue due to the lack of the availability of property tax
revenues after the 1978-79 fiscal year. Such districts are encouraged to begin the
transition to user fees and charges during the 1978-79 fiscal year.37
Almost 40 years later, five of the independent sanitary districts continue to rely heavily on
property tax revenue while also collecting sewer service charges. Their budgets for FY 2015-
2016 include $1,733,000 for property tax receipts.38 In 2013, Granada Sanitary District took a
small step towards reducing its heavy reliance on property tax by adding Parks and Recreation to
its scope, becoming the Granada Community Services District. The resolution applying for its
reorganization, contained the following statement:
“WHEREAS, the District receives property tax as well as sewer and garbage fees and it is
currently intended that Park and Recreation services would initially be funded with a portion
of the property tax the District receives . . .”39
If the five districts did not receive a share of the 1% property tax, their rates would be more
comparable with districts such as West Bay (see Figure 9). Without the property tax, the five
districts’ ratepayers would pay more and County taxpayers’ tax would be allocated elsewhere.
37 California Government Code Section 16270, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=16001-17000&file=16270-16271.
38 See Appendix G: Sanitary District Budgets.
39 Granada Sanitary District, Resolution No. 2013-003, Resolution of Application for a Reorganization of the
Granada Sanitary District into a Community Services District. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/2013-04-18_RESOLUTION_for_LAFCO_Application.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 30
Figure 9: Impact of Property Tax in Reducing Sewer Rate
Source: See Appendix H: Sanitary District Budget Analysis FY 2015-2016.
Note: The impact of the property tax is calculated by dividing the total property tax by
the number of customers in the district. This is an approximation of the impact of the
tax since not all customers are subject to the same rate structure.
High and Rising Rates
Sewer Service Charges are the primary source of revenue for the independent sanitary districts,
ranging from 51% for Granada to 96% for West Bay. Sewer Service Charges come from rates
paid by users.
As indicated earlier, the rates in San Mateo County for the 10 County-run and six independent
districts are greater than those for comparable urban areas in the Bay Area.40 Those rates range
from $187 to $705, while independent sanitary district rates range from $402 to $973 (see Table
10). Rates for the County-run districts have averaged 25% growth in the last five years (from
2010-2011 to 2015-2016). During the same period, the average of the independent sanitary
districts was 20%. The consumer price index for the San Francisco Bay Area grew
approximately 14% during the same period.
40 As noted earlier, the rates do not include other potential revenue sources such as property taxes.
$-
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
Average Residential Rate Property Tax/Customer
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 31
Table 10: Sanitary Sewer Rates and Growth
Name 2015-2016 % Growth 2011 to 2016
Bayshore Sanitary District $613 0%
Westborough Water District $512 29%
Montara Water & Sanitary District $810 11%
Granada Community Services District $402 10%
East Palo Alto Sanitary District $575 19%
West Bay Sanitary District $973 50%
Average Rate and Growth of Independent Districts $648 20%
Average Rate and Growth of County-Managed Districts $1,072 25%
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Bay Area 14%
Source: Appendix I: Sanitary District Sewer Rates.
Rate increases are subject to Proposition 218, which requires that sanitary districts hold a public
hearing, mail advance notice of the hearing, and conduct a ballot protest proceeding before any
proposed rate increase.41 This means that districts must have ratepayer support to increase rates,
even in cases where rate increases are required to allow agencies to comply with state mandates
to avoid sanitary sewer overflows. Ratepayer protest is more likely in smaller systems with lower
numbers of ratepayers.42
The challenge for ratepayers is judging whether the rate they are being charged is appropriate or
not. The fact that the rate is rising rapidly could be due to the district’s failure to raise rates in
earlier years by deferring capital improvements, or to the tightening of State regulatory oversight
requiring new capital investments, among other possibilities. Low rates are not necessarily a sign
of prudent fiscal management.
Handling of Treatment Costs
The sanitary districts collect revenue for the treatment of sewage as well as the collection of
sewage, even though they do not manage the sewage treatment plants. Between one third and
two thirds of all revenues received by these districts go towards treatment expense and capital, as
shown in Figure 10. Treatment expense is the annual cost to process sewage. Treatment capital is
the money to fund capital improvement projects, such as the replacement of equipment or
construction of new facilities. For example, treatment expense and capital is 47% of West Bay’s
budget, leaving 53% for maintenance and capital improvement of its sewage collection system.
41 California Special Districts Association, Proposition 218 Guide for Special Districts, 2013. p. 19.
42 Official from San Mateo LAFCo: interview by the Grand Jury.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 32
Figure 10: Treatment Expense and Capital’s Share of Revenue
Source: See Appendix H: Sanitary District Budget Analysis FY 2015-2016.
The wide discrepancy in percentage of revenue allocated to treatment is due to many reasons—
the varying costs of the treatment plants used, the nature of the contracts negotiated with the
treatment plants, the amount of capital investment currently underway at the treatment plants,
and the individual district’s budgeting practices. This arrangement further separates the ratepayer
from the agency spending the ratepayer’s money. It makes it difficult to judge whether the rates
are fair across the County, and whether the money is well spent. In any case, it introduces
additional players to the decisions involved in managing sewage treatment plants, and that in
itself may add little value.
Rationalizing Collection and Administration Expenses
After treatment costs are removed, the districts are left with the costs associated with
administering the district and maintaining the sewer pipes.
The wide differences in how expenses are allocated between Collection and
Administration/Finance are difficult to explain (see Figure 11).
• The methodology for allocating costs between Collection and Administration/Finance is
neither well defined nor consistent across districts.
• Districts with both water and sewage responsibilities (such as Montara and Westborough)
tend to have a lower proportion of Administration and Finance because these costs
are shared.
• Westborough does not report its revenue and expenses separately between its water and
sewage responsibilities, so its split was estimated. It is difficult to understand how
Westborough can set rates for sewer services without separate cost accounting for water
and sewer services.
0%20%40%60%80%100%BayshoreWestboroughMontaraGranadaEast Palo AltoWest Bay
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33
• East Palo Alto’s emphasis on community engagement and involvement may be a factor
in why such a high percentage of its non-treatment operating expenses (80%) are for
Administration and Finance.43
Figure 11: Operating Expense Split between Collection and Administration/Finance
Source: See Appendix H: Sanitary District Budget Analysis FY 2015-2016.
Note: West Bay does not consider treatment costs to be operating costs, unlike the
other districts. It classifies them as non-operating costs. For comparative purposes, the
Grand Jury categorized them in this report as operating costs.
Collection expense per mile of pipeline varies from $7,165 for Westborough to $18,619
for Montara (see Figure 12).44 The Grand Jury was unable to determine the reasons for
the differences.
43 In addition to the Public Relations study cited earlier (Jatelo Productions, East Palo Alto Sanitary District
Public Relations Plan), East Palo Alto is the only district whose board calendar includes regular public relations
committee meetings.
44 See Appendix D: Sewage System Characteristics by District; see Appendix G: Sanitary District Budgets for FY
2015-2016; see Appendix H: Sanitary District Budgets for FY 2014-2015.
0%20%40%60%80%100%BayshoreWestboroughMontaraGranadaEast Palo AltoWest Bay
Administration &FinanceCollection
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 34
Figure 12: Collection Expense per Mile of Pipeline
Source: See Appendix H: Sanitary District Budget Analysis FY 2015-2016.
Note: Calculated as collection costs divided by miles of gravity and forced
main pipelines.
Board Compensation
Board compensation differs dramatically between districts (see Figure 13). The per-diem rate for
meeting attendance varies from $75 for Montara’s directors to $293 for East Palo Alto’s. Most
districts hold monthly board meetings; Montara’s and West Bay’s boards meet twice per month.
East Palo Alto is the only district with standing committee meetings scheduled on days other
than regular board meetings.45
Government codes dictate the allowable compensation for board members of special districts.
Sanitary districts’ compensation is covered by California Health and Safety Code Section 6489,
which sets $100 as the maximum allowable compensation per day.46 Community services
districts and water districts have the same limit. The law allows for an adjustment of 5% per year
following a public hearing.47 Bayshore, East Palo Alto, and West Bay have been generous in
taking advantage of these provisions to raise board director compensation.
45 Based on meeting schedules posted on district websites.
46 California Health and Safety Code, Section 6489.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC§ionNum=6489.
47 California Water Code, Section 20200-20207, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-
bin/displaycode?section=wat&group=20001-21000&file=20200-20207.
$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 35
Figure 13: Meeting Compensation for Directors
Source: See Appendix J: Board Costs for Sanitary Districts.
The difference in compensation practices is even starker when you compare annual total
compensation planned in the FY 2015-2016 budgets (see Figure 14). East Palo Alto’s board
members receive an average of $18,000 in compensation and other benefits per year, while West
Bay’s receive only $11,000 in spite of it being a much larger district. Three of the districts have
responsibility for a major mission other than sewage (Granada, Montara, and Westborough). In
these cases, their board costs reflect a portion of the total costs, which is why they are lower than
Bayshore’s, East Palo Alto’s, and West Bay’s.48
48 All districts except Westborough provide separate budgets for their sewage management responsibilities.
Westborough’s management assisted the Grand Jury with an estimate of its sewage-related budget.
$0$50$100$150$200$250$300$350
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 36
Figure 14: Annual Board Compensation per Director
Source: See Appendix J: Board Costs for Sanitary Districts.
While most districts do not provide benefits to their directors other than a meeting stipend,
Bayshore and East Palo Alto offer substantial benefits (see Table 11). These benefits are
generous given the very occasional responsibilities of board members.
Table 11: Board of Director Benefits by District
District Benefit
Bayshore Dental, Life Insurance for Directors and Spouse / Partner or Children
Westborough None
Montara None
Granada None
East Palo Alto Dental, Vision, Health
West Bay None
Source: See Appendix J: Board Costs for Sanitary Districts.
Note: FY 2015-2016.
$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 $18,000 $20,000
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 37
Redundant Activities
The six districts budget for items that duplicate work done by other districts. This duplication of
costs can be redundant and costly to the taxpayer (see Figure 15).
Figure 15: Economies of Scale in Professional Services
If the districts were consolidated with other entities, the board costs associated with sewer
services would be eliminated. Similarly, audit costs would be eliminated for the districts if they
were consolidated. The audit costs for the receiving entities may go up slightly, especially during
the year of consolidation, but the incremental costs would be small.
A portion of legal and engineering fees would continue to be required in the event of
consolidations because of the unique characteristics of each district being eliminated. However,
the common work of staying apprised of current legal and regulatory requirements, attending
district meetings, and preparing district documents (such as Sewer System Management Plans)
could be reduced, perhaps dramatically.
The costs involved are not insignificant. For example, board costs total over $225,000 per year
(see Table 12). The total cost of professional services is nearly $1,000,000, much of which
would be eliminated by consolidation.
Table 12: Cost Impact of Multiple Small Districts
Expense
Type
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay Totals
Board $35,000 $24,416 $17,000 $5,300 $91,800 $55,404 $228,920
Legal $30,000 $15,900 $24,500 $60,000 $36,000 $160,000 $326,400
Audit $10,500 $8,758 $13,000 $12,000 $20,043 $15,000 $79,301
Engineering $55,000 $9,150 $52,000 $20,000 $85,000 $130,000 $351,150
Total $130,500 $58,224 $106,500 $97,300 $232,843 $360,404 $985,771
Source: Input from individual districts as well as published budgets. See Appendix G: Sanitary District
Budgets.
Note: Data for FY 2015-2016.
The Grand Jury did not investigate the contracts for the professional services firms supporting
the sanitary districts. Longevity is highly valued by the districts. The legal counsel in each of the
Board
Audit
Legal, Engineering
100% Degree of Redundancy 0%
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 38
six has been in place at least 10 years,49 with Westborough’s counsel serving for over 30 years.
Such long-term relationships raise questions about the competitiveness of the fees paid to these
firms, since they appear to be rarely, if ever, subject to a standard procurement bidding process.
Other economies of scale could be realized in general management and office administration.
There may be opportunities in collection activities as well, with economies of scale in workforce
and equipment utilization. West Bay provides a good example. When Los Altos Hills contracted
with West Bay for sewer collection services, West Bay’s network expanded by 54 miles, or
about 27%. It added two people on a base of 28 full-time equivalent staff, or only 7%.50
Scale is a challenge for benchmarking of administrative and finance processes. The minutes of
the Granada board meeting from January 21, 2016, record an exchange between director David
Seaton, elected in 2013, and director Leonard Woren, elected
in 1997:
“Consideration of Potential Cost Sharing Opportunities among Sewer Authority Mid-
Coastside (SAM) Member Agencies.
Director Seaton requested this Item for discussion as he feels overhead costs of Coastside
agencies providing sewer related services are greater than necessary for the population.
He suggested a long-term approach aimed at cost sharing if not consolidation. The Board
held a discussion.
ACTION: Director Woren moved to table the Item indefinitely until Director Seaton is
able [sic] provide specific line-item expenses with the estimated cost saving calculations
he foresees by cost sharing.”51
This generally negative attitude to the potential for improvement through sharing of best
practices, mutual benchmarking, and other cooperative efforts was clearly visible in the
leadership of the five smallest districts interviewed.52
49 Officials from independent sanitary districts: interviews by the Grand Jury.
50 Ibid.
51 Minutes of Granada Sanitary District Board of Directors Regular Meeting, dated January 21, 2016, p. 2.
52 Officials from independent sanitary districts (excluding West Bay): interviews by the Grand Jury.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 39
Operational Competence
No Gold Standard
The core operating responsibility of the sanitary districts is sewage collection, which translates to
the maintenance of the pipes that connect customers’ homes and businesses to the treatment
plant. These responsibilities also include connecting new customers to the sewage system or
modifying existing customers’ connections.
The sanitary districts have a modest role to play in terms of customer service. They field calls
from customers regarding sewage leakages and sewer line blockages. They receive requests for
permits for new or upgraded connections. Customers themselves must coordinate with building
and public works departments to replace or upgrade laterals and cleanouts. Only one of the
districts, West Bay, tracks any metrics related to its interactions with customers, although all
districts claimed to have excellent customer service.53
The Grand Jury was unable to determine whether a “gold standard” of performance exists for
sewage collection. When we asked management of each of the districts who they viewed as the
“gold standard” in the Bay Area, we received interesting results:
• Bayshore cited itself.
• East Palo Alto, Granada, and Montara cited West Bay.
• The biggest district, West Bay, cited Central Contra Costa Sanitary, West Valley Sanitary
District, and Union Sanitary in Fremont.
Only East Palo Alto and West Bay appeared to be actively involved in the primary professional
association for sewage system management, the California Water Environment Association. As a
result, even among the districts themselves, there is no objective basis for evaluating the
performance of the sanitary districts.
Age of Pipelines
The sewage infrastructure of the six independent sanitary districts is old, with over 43% laid
before 1960.54 Older pipe is more susceptible to problems due to root intrusion, land settling,
inaccurate maps, and other causes. Because of these problems, older pipe can be more expensive
to maintain. Most of these older pipes are clay or concrete, which typically last 50 to 60 years. 55
53 Officials from the independent sanitary districts: interviews by the Grand Jury.
54 See Appendix F: Age Profile of District Pipelines.
55 Most sewer pipe laid before 1980 was clay or concrete. Pipe Rehab Specialists, How Long Do Sewer Pipes Last?,
accessed May 1, 2016. http://www.piperehabspecialists.com/how-long-do-sewer-pipes-last/.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 40
Approximately half the pipes in East Palo Alto and West Bay are over 50 years old and therefore
approaching end of life (see Figure 16).
Figure 16: Pipeline Age by District
Source: See Appendix F: Age Profile of District Pipelines.
Note: Montara data estimated for 1940-1959 and 1960-1979 by dividing pipe aged
between 1940-1979 by two.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
San Mateo County’s independent sanitary districts contribute less than 10% of the sanitary sewer
overflows in the County (see Table 13). With approximately 17% of the County’s total pipeline
length, they are doing relatively better as a group than the other sewer providers in the County.
Table 13: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District
2013 2014 2015
San Mateo County 186 238 155
Percentage from Independent Districts 10% 9% 9%
Bayshore 1 2 1
Westborough 1 0 0
Montara 1 4 7
Granada 5 2 1
East Palo Alto 0 0 0
West Bay 10 14 5
Source: See Appendix E: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District by Year.
From 2011 to 2015, the most noticeable change in performance by any district is West Bay’s
dramatic improvement (see Figure 17). West Bay’s current general manager, a public works
executive with more than 30 years of experience in wastewater management, joined the district
in 2010 and made reduction in SSOs a major priority. Montara struggles to prevent overflows in
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
2000-Present1980-19991960-19791940-19591920-19391900-1919
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 41
its hilly environment with many pump stations. East Palo Alto reported having no SSOs in the
last five years, while Westborough reported only one, and that in 2013.
Figure 17: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Year
Source: See Appendix E: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District by Year.
Note: Some data points are not visible due to overlap. For example, Bayshore’s values
for 2014 and 2015 are equal to Granada’s, so its line is hidden behind Granada’s.
Similarly, East Palo Alto’s and Westborough’s values are identical in all years except
2013, so the East Palo Alto values are only visible in that year.
SSOs per mile of pipe show that the two biggest districts (West Bay and East Palo Alto) are
lower than the state average for SSOs per mile of pipe, in spite of the age of their pipes (see
Figure 18). It is difficult to assess precisely why this is the case other than to note the experience
and professionalism of their leadership and employees, as well as West Bay’s deployment of
technologies such as cured-in-place pipe and linear asset management planning.56 Bayshore and
Montara SSOs were high relative to County and state averages in 2014, with that trend
continuing for Montara into 2015.
56 Cured-in-place pipe is a “jointless, seamless, pipe-within-a-pipe with the capability to rehabilitate pipes.” It is one
of several trenchless rehabilitation methods used to repair existing pipelines. Source: Wikipedia entry for cured-in-
place pipe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cured-in-place_pipe. Linear asset planning is a method for prioritizing
pipeline repair or replacement based on multiple factors.
0246810121416
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015BayshoreEast Palo Alto GranadaMontaraWestboroughWest Bay
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 42
Figure 18: Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Mile of Pipe
Source: See Appendix E: Sanitary Sewer Overflows by District by Year.
Notes: East Palo Alto and Westborough reported no Sanitary Sewer Overflows in 2014
and 2015.
Dependence on Contractors
With the exception of West Bay, the sanitary districts are so small that they cannot justify hiring
and retaining their own staff, so they hire outside contractors to manage their responsibilities.
The functions performed by contractors are highlighted in Table 14.
00.050.10.150.20.250.3
20142015
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 43
Table 14: Use of Contractors by Function in Independent Sanitary Districts
Responsibility Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada EPA West Bay
Number of Full-Time
Equivalent Employees
0 1a 2 2 9 28
District Administration
General Manager N/A Employee Employee Dudek &
Associatesb
Contractorc Employee
District Clerk Contractord Employee N//A Employee N/A N/A
Legal
Meyers
Nave
Hanson
Bridgett
LLP
Law Offices
of David E.
Schricker
Wittwer
Parkin LLP
Best Best &
Krieger
LLP
Atchison,
Barisone,
Condotti &
Kovacevich
Finance & Accounting
Accountant Contractord Chavan &
Associates,
LLP
Maze &
Associates
Employee Jeanpierre,
Wegem,
Alabi & Co.
LLP CPAs
Employee
Sewer Service Rates TBD TBD Bartle
Wells
Associates
TBD Bartle
Wells
Associates
HF&H
Consultants
, LLC
Auditore Fechter &
Co., CPAs
Charles Z.
Fedak
Vavernick,
Trine &
Day
Fechter &
Co, CPAs
Maze &
Associates
Chavan &
Associates,
LLP
Engineering Thomas E.
Yeager,
formerly of
Kennedy /
Jenks
Pakpour
Consulting
Nute
Engineering
Kennedy /
Jenks
Consultants
Freyer &
Laureta
Inc.
Employee
Collections
(Maintenance)
Collection
Systems
Main-
tenance
Service
North San
Mateo
County
Sanitation
District
Sewer
Authority
Mid-
Coastside
(SAM)
Sewer
Authority
Mid-
Coastside
(SAM)
Employee Employee
Permit Processing Contractor Employee /
Contractor
Employee Employee Employee Employee
Treatment SFPUC
Southeast
Treatment
Plant
North San
Mateo
County
Sanitation
District
Treatment
Plant
Sewer
Authority
Mid-
Coastside
(SAM)
Sewer
Authority
Mid-
Coastside
(SAM)
Palo Alto
Regional
Water
Quality
Control
Plant
Silicon
Valley
Clean
Water
Sources: Representative from Bayshore: interview by the Grand Jury, February 23, 2016.
Representative from Westborough: interview by the Grand Jury, February 29, 2016.
Representative from Montara: interview by the Grand Jury, February 22, 2016.
Representative from Granada: interview by the Grand Jury, February 22, 2016.
Representative from East Palo Alto: interview by the Grand Jury, February 25, 2016.
Representative from West Bay: interview by the Grand Jury, February 23, 2016.
Notes: aWestborough has three employees involved in sewer management, but each also supports its
mission of providing fresh water. Management judged that it had the equivalent of one employee managing
its sewage responsibilities, spread across General Management, the District Clerk, and permit processing.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 44
bChuck Duffy serves approximately 30 hours per month. According to Granada district staff, he serves as
general manager for two other sanitary districts located in southern California.
cKaren Maxey, independent contractor and former employee.
dJoann Landi, independent contractor.
eAuditors are always independent contractors.
Some of the same contractors work in several districts. For example, Fechter provides audit
services for Bayshore and Granada. Westborough and West Bay use Chavan & Associates
for financial services. Kennedy/Jenks Consulting is the source of engineering for Bayshore
and Granada.
Use of Technologies
Based on the Grand Jury’s research, the five smallest independent districts are using few of the
current technologies available to manage their collection systems (see Table 15).57 The newer
technologies offer ways to prevent problems that older approaches based on the fix-it-when-it-
breaks approach did not. This can have near-term implications such as increased risk of sanitary
sewer overflows. A bigger concern is that without taking steps to proactively preserve,
rehabilitate, and replace pipelines now, districts will face increased costs in the future. The recent
publicity (mentioned earlier in this report) about unplanned, multi-hundred million dollar
investments to replace worn-out collection and treatment systems attests to this.58
During interviews, it became clear that many of the independent sanitary district leaders were
unaware of developments in sewage management that may be applicable to them. They rarely if
ever attend industry conferences,59 do not appear to require employees or contractors’ employees
to participate in certification programs, and do not actively benchmark their performance.
57 Officials from the independent sanitary districts: interviews by the Grand Jury.
58 See Section titled “Urban Sewage Management.”
59 Only Montara and West Bay leadership reported regular attendance at conferences directly related to sanitary
waste management, such as California Association of Sanitation Agencies and California Water Environment
Association. All districts attended at least occasional meetings at the California Special Districts Association.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 45
Table 15: Use of Operational and Planning & Control Technologies by District
In Use Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada EPA West
Bay
Operational Performance
Camera Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Sonar Technology No No No No No No
Root Foaming No Yes No No No Yes
Trenchless / Slip Line
Technology
Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Operator Certifications No Yes No Yes No Yes
Planning & Control
Technologies
Linear Asset Management
Plan (LAMP)
No No Yes No No Yes
Effective Utility
Management
No No Yes No No Yes
SCADA Systems No Yes Yes No No Yes
Planned Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada EPA West
Bay
Operational Performance
Camera Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sonar Technology No No No No No No
Root Foaming No Yes No No No Yes
Trenchless / Slip Line
Technology
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Operator Certifications No Yes No Yes No Yes
Planning & Control
Technologies
Linear Asset Management
Plan (LAMP)
No No No No No Yes
Effective Utility
Management
No No No No No Yes
SCADA Systems No Yes Yes No No Yes
Change in use
Source: Sanitary District interviews.
Technology is not the only factor that leads to good performance. The Grand Jury learned that
good performance is a function of the base condition of the infrastructure, the quality and skill of
leadership and staff, work standards, the tools and technology available to perform the work, and
the funds allocated to capital investment. There are likely other factors, as well.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 46
Emergency Preparedness
A review of urban sewage management websites turns up evaluations of the emergency-
preparedness of their systems. San Francisco has a comprehensive Sewer System Improvement
Program, whose initial goal is to “provide a compliant, reliable, resilient, and flexible system that
can respond to catastrophic events.”60 The associated level of service is to “ensure treatment of
flows within 72 hours of a major earthquake.”61 San Jose updated its Sewer System Management
Plan in 2014, with multiple references to emergency management.62
As mentioned earlier, the State Water Control Board requires Sewer System Management Plans
of all districts, and yet only two of San Mateo’s independent districts have plans that are easy to
locate on their websites. Emergency preparedness is a key required component of these plans.
The Grand Jury reviewed the meeting minutes of the six districts for the last 12 months, from
approximately April 2015 through March 2016. There was no evidence of any discussion
regarding emergency preparedness in any of the sets of minutes.63
FINDINGS
F1. From 2013-2015, San Mateo County sewer agencies had more than twice as many
sanitary sewer overflows as San Jose and three times as many as Central Contra Costa
Sanitary District.
F2. Independent district websites have gaps in information regarding historical rates, sewer
system management plans, and sanitary sewer overflows. Meeting minutes and financial
audits are frequently out of date.
F3. The use of the annual property tax statement for billing purposes makes the cost of sewer
services less visible to residents.
F4. Elections for sanitary district board membership are rarely contested, and when they are,
voter turnout is low. The average tenure of board members is over 10 years.
F5. Five of the six districts receive countywide property taxes, which means that residents’ fees
are not paying the full cost of sewer services.
F6. Sewer rates from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 increased faster than the consumer price index.
The six districts acknowledged that this trend is likely to continue given the age of
pipelines in the County and the cost of maintenance to and replacement of those pipelines.
F7. Funds for treatment plants pass from ratepayers through the independent sanitary districts
to the treatment plants; the sanitary districts add little value.
F8. The total budget for operating the boards of the six districts studied is over $225,000. East
Palo Alto’s average annual compensation for directors is $18,000, 66% higher than the
60 San Francisco Water Power Sewer, SSIP Goals & Level of Service. http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=668.
61 Ibid.
62 City of San Jose, Sewer System Management Plan, Document No. 1131790, October 2014, p. 8.
63 See Appendix L: References to “Disaster” or “Emergency” in Board Meeting Minutes.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 47
next highest (and much larger) district, West Bay. Bayshore and East Palo Alto offer
employee-type benefits to directors including dental insurance.
F9. The pipelines of the six districts are aging, with almost half having been laid over 50 years
ago. These pipes are approaching end of life.
F10. There are many wholly or partially redundant activities across the six independent districts,
including board costs, financial audits, legal services, and engineering.
F11. Most of the independent sanitary districts rely almost entirely on contractors to fulfill
their responsibilities.
F12. In many cases, district leadership is unfamiliar with the existing and emerging technologies
for improving sewer system performance while reducing costs.
F13. The proliferation of sanitary districts within San Mateo County makes it challenging to
coordinate an emergency response. The districts themselves have not reviewed or discussed
emergency/disaster planning within their boards in the past year.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Bayshore Sanitary District and the City
Councils of Brisbane and Daly City do the following:
R1. Form a committee of Board members (Bayshore Sanitary District), Council members
(Brisbane, Daly City), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services provided
by Bayshore Sanitary District into Brisbane and/or Daly City. Evaluate alternatives and
determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by
September 30, 2017.
The Grand Jury recommends that Boards of the East Palo Alto Sanitary District and West Bay
Sanitary District and the City Council of East Palo Alto do the following:
R2. Form a committee of Board members (East Palo Alto Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary
District), Council members (East Palo Alto), and staff from each to discuss the assumption
of services provided by East Palo Alto Sanitary District into either West Bay Sanitary
District or the City of East Palo Alto. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to
ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Granada Community Services District and
Montara Water and Sanitary District and the City Council of Half Moon Bay do the following:
R3. Form a committee of Board members (Granada Community Services District, Montara
Water and Sanitary District), Council members (Half Moon Bay), and staff from each to
plan the consolidation or assumption of services provided by these two districts. Evaluate
alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with recommendations
and a plan by September 30, 2017.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 48
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District and the City
Councils of Daly City and South San Francisco do the following:
R4. Form a committee of Board members (Westborough Water District), Council members
(Daly City, South San Francisco), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of services
provided by Westborough Water District into Daly City and/or South San Francisco.
Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report with
recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. Work with California Water Service
Company on this initiative.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto
Sanitary District, Granada Community Services District, Montara Water & Sanitary District,
West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R5. Improve information visibility on their website, including key system characteristics, rates
and rate history, sewer system management plans, sanitary sewer overflows, and board
member compensation. Key system characteristics would include population served,
number of connections, number of miles of pipe (gravity, forced main), number of pump
stations and number of pumps, average dry weather flow, and average wet weather flow.
Ensure all information is up to date. Refresh website by September 30, 2016.
R6. Implement and publish performance management metrics including but not limited to the
Effective Utility Management framework, beginning with Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
R7. Adjust rates over the next five years so that all costs are recovered from ratepayers, and the
reliance on property tax is eliminated. Transition property tax revenues to neighboring
cities to be used for community benefit.
R8. Mail notices to ratepayers at least annually with an explanation of the dollar amount of
sewer service charges being billed and the rationale. Provide information on the prior five
years’ rates for comparison purposes. Display the portion of the rate that is related to
collection activities, and the portion allocated to treatment. Mail notices approximately 30
days before the mailing of the property tax bills. Initiate mailings by November 2016.
R9. Notify ratepayers annually of elected nature of Board, role and compensation of Board
members, and process for becoming a candidate. Encourage active participation by
ratepayers. This notification may be included in the mailing that explains the rationale for
rates. Initiate notification by November 2016.
R10. Establish term limits for the members of their boards of directors by June 30, 2017.
R11. Establish a procurement process for professional services to include formal evaluation of
existing service providers, issuance of Request for Proposals, regular reviews of existing
providers, and a structured negotiation process by March 31, 2017.
R12. Demonstrate active participation in professional organizations focused on the work of
sanitary districts, such as California Water Environment Association, by June 30, 2017.
Require CWEA certification of district operators, including contractors, by June 30, 2017.
R13. Develop plans for coordinating resources in the event of a local or regional emergency
by June 30, 2017.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 49
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of Bayshore Sanitary District, East Palo Alto
Sanitary District, West Bay Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R14. Evaluate the benefit of changing the timing of board director elections to November of
even years, when federal and state elections generate greater turnout.64
The Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District do the following:
R15. Develop, publish, and track separate budgets for sewer and water services, beginning with
Fiscal Year 2016-2017.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District, Montara Water
and Sanitary District, and Westborough Water District do the following:
R16. Explore the feasibility of establishing a flat rate for capital improvements separate from the
water usage rate. Report back at a public meeting by December 31, 2016.
The Grand Jury recommends that the Boards of the Bayshore Sanitary District and East Palo
Alto Sanitary District do the following:
R17. Reduce the daily compensation of board directors to $100 per day by December 31, 2017.
Phase out all benefits for board directors over a period of time not to exceed three years.
The Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission
do the following:
R18. Initiate a service review of the Westborough Water District to examine whether its
operations might be more efficiently and effectively run if they were consolidated with
another entity’s operations.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
From the following entities:
• San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission: R18
From the following governing bodies:65
• Bayshore Sanitary District: R1, R5-R13, R14, R16, R17
• East Palo Alto Sanitary District: R2, R5-R13, R14, R17
• Granada Community Services District: R3, R5-R13
• Montara Water & Sanitary District: R3, R5-R13, R16
64 Granada Community Services District and Montara Water and Sanitary District have already made the decision to
transition director elections to even-numbered years, beginning in 2016.
65 Each district should respond to the Finding and Recommendation in light of its particular circumstances and
performance, and not reply on behalf of all independent districts.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 50
• West Bay Sanitary District: R2, R5-R13, R14
• Westborough Water District : R4, R5-R13, R14, R15, R16
• City of Brisbane: R1
• City of Daly City: R1, R4
• City of East Palo Alto: R2
• City of Half Moon Bay: R3
• City of South San Francisco: R4
The governing bodies identified above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements
of the Brown Act.
METHODOLOGY
Documents
• The Grand Jury gathered information from each of the six independent sanitary districts
in four steps:
− Step 1: The Grand Jury conducted Internet research on each district, including its
budgets, meeting minutes, and Sanitary Sewer Management Plans. The Jury also
reviewed election records and performance statistics gathered by the State of
California Water Resources Board.
− Step 2: The Grand Jury requested information from each district on its budget, along
with collection system information.
− Step 3: The Grand Jury requested information from each district on its budgeting
practices and pipeline ages. It also asked that each district review its data as analyzed
by the Grand Jury and confirm the data was correct.
− Step 4: The Grand Jury requested additional information on rates and technology
deployment. It also asked each district to once again verify the data used to describe
its district in the report.
Interviews
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code
Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts
leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury.
The Grand Jury interviewed leadership at each of the six independent sanitary districts as well as
LAFCo of San Mateo County.
Site Visits
• Bayshore Sanitary District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bayshore Sanitary District
Bayshore Sanitary District. Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Adopted July 23, 2015.
Accessed March 17, 2016. http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/2000s/FY%202015-
16%20Budget%20001.pdf.
Bayshore Sanitary District. Financial Statements and Supplementary Information for the Year
Ended June 30, 2015 with Independent Auditor’s Report. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/audits/Bayshore%20Sanitary%20District%20financial%20stat
ements%202015.pdf.
Bayshore Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget. July 24, 2014. Accessed March 17,
2016. http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/2000s/FY%202014-2015.pdf.
Bayshore Sanitary District. How Annual Sewer Service Charges Are Calculated. Accessed
March 17, 2016.
file:///Users/katefickle/Documents/My%20Professional%20Life/San%20Mateo%20Grand%20Ju
ry/Sanitary%20District/Research%20Documents/Bayshore%20Sanitary%20District/How%20An
nual%20Sewer%20Service%20Charges%20Are%20Calculated%20%7C%20Bayshore%20Sanit
ary%20District,%20Daly%20City%20&%20Brisbane,%20.webarchive.
Bayshore Sanitary District. Management Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2014. Accessed
March 17, 2016. http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/audits/6-30-14%20audit.pdf.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Sewer System Improvement Program. San
Francisco's Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Updated 6/14.
http://www.sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5801.
San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission. North County Cities & Special
Districts, Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Study. September 16, 2015.
Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/North%20County%20MSR
%20-%209-16-15_3.pdf.
Yaeger, Thomas E., P.E. District Engineer, Bayshore Sanitary District. Sewer System
Management Plan (SSMP), Revision 2, August 2015. August 22, 2015.
http://bayshoresanitary.com/SSMPRev2.pdf.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
City of Palo Alto Public Works-Watershed Protection Group. Clean Bay 2016 Pollution
Prevention Plan, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. Undated.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51362.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Approved Budget FY 2014-2015. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://38.106.4.240/Home/ShowDocument?id=446.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 52
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Approved Budget FY 2015-2016. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=538.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Basic Financial Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2014.
November 26, 2014. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=528.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Sewer Service Charges Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Published July
2015. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=550.
Jatelo Productions. East Palo Alto Sanitary District Public Relations Plan. November 7, 2013.
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=324.
Poyatos, Martha, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the East Palo Alto Sanitary
District. February 17, 2009. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/msrepasdfinalwithattachmen
ts_0.pdf.
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Grand Jury. 2002 Report: East Palo Alto
Sanitary District. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/2002reports.php?page=02eastpaloalto
_sanitary_district.html.
Granada Sanitary District
Granada Sanitary District. Basic Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, Years
Ended June 30, 2013 and 2012. June 15, 2014. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2012-13_Audit.pdf.
Granada Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2014/15 Sewer District Budget. Undated.
http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2014-15_Budget.pdf.
Granada Community Services District. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget. Undated.
http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2015-16_Budget.pdf.
Granada Sanitary District, Resolution No. 2013-003, Resolution of Application for a
Reorganization of the Granada Sanitary District into a Community Services District. April 18,
2013. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/2013-04-
18_RESOLUTION_for_LAFCO_Application.pdf.
Poyatos, Martha, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Impartial Analysis for June 3, 2014 Ballot Measure for Reorganization of the Granada Sanitary
District into a Community Services District and Adding the Service of Park and Recreation
(LAFCo File No. 13‐05). March 12, 2014. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/events/3-12-14%20-
%20LAFCo%20Impartial%20Analysis%20for%20June%203%2C%202014%20Ballot%20Meas
ure.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 53
Poyatos, Martha, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Sphere of Influence Update, City of Half Moon Bay and Unincorporated Midcoast. October 7,
2008.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/2008_10_08_lafco_soicoast
sideoct7wattachments_1.pdf.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. An Agreement Creating the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.
Consolidated and updated as of October 10, 2011.
http://www.samcleanswater.org/destiny/consolidated_jpa.pdf.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. Flow Distribution Report Summary for October 2015. Undated.
http://www.samcleanswater.org/agendas/2015/151123/201511234da.pdf.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. Sewer System Management Plan. Approx. 2008.
http://www.samcleanswater.org/SSMP/SSMPDocument2008SubmissionFinal.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Annual Financial Report June 30, 2014 with Independent
Auditors’ Report. June 30, 2104.
http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/reports/MWSD12-
13Financial%20Statements%20-%20PDF.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Budget FY 2014-2015. Undated.
http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-fees/Fiscal%20year%202014-
2015%20budget%20Summary.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Capital Improvement Program, 2014-15, Sewer System.
July 21, 2014. http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-fees/CIPs%2014-
15_Sewer_System.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Executive Summary.
Undated. http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-fees/MWSD_2015-
16_adopted_budget.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Ordinance No. 177, Ordinance of the Montara Water and
Sanitary District Restating and Amending Master Fee Schedule. June 4, 2015.
http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-
fees/MWSDFeesSkedOrd17715.9.16.pdf.
Nute Engineering, Montara Water and Sanitary District. Sewer System Management Plan,
Resolution 1583, Update Prepared August 2014.
http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/legal-
regulatory/2014%20MWSD%20SSMP%20FINAL%20Elements%20I-XI.pdf.
Poyatos, Martha, Executive Officer, San Mateo County Local Agency Formation
Commission. Sphere of Influence Update, City of Half Moon Bay and Unincorporated
Midcoast. October 7, 2008.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 54
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/2008_10_08_lafco_soicoast
sideoct7wattachments_1.pdf.
Rauch Communication Consultants, Inc., Montara Water and Sanitary District. 2015 Strategic
Plan. Undated.
http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/service/21_MWSD_Strategic.Plan+Cover.Po
st.Board.1.pdf.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. An Agreement Creating the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.
Consolidated and updated as of October 10, 2011.
http://www.samcleanswater.org/destiny/consolidated_jpa.pdf.
West Bay Sanitary District
Chavan & Associates LLP, West Bay Sanitary District. Financial Statements and Independent
Auditor’s Report, June 30, 2015. October 19, 2015. https://westbaysanitary.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/2014-15-WBSD-Audited-Financials-CALLP-FINAL.pdf.
HF&H Consultants, LLC, West Bay Sanitary District. Sewer Rate Study, Final Report, April 22,
2015. April 22, 2015. http://westbaysanitary.org/wsbd-
prod/resources/1400/WBSD_FINALReport_22April2015.pdf.
San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission. Municipal Service Review and Sphere
of Influence Update, West Bay Sanitary District. February 12, 2009. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/sites/lafco.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/MSRwestbaysanitaryfebruar
y_0.pdf.
Silicon Valley Clean Water. Commission Overview. Accessed March 18, 2016.
http://www.svcw.org/about/sitePages/overview.aspx.
V. W. Housen & Associates, West Bay Sanitary District. Linear Asset Management Plan
(LAMP), February 2016. Draft dated February 7, 2016.
West Bay Sanitary District. General Fund and Capital Asset Fund Budgets & Reserves, FY
2015-16, Approved June 10, 2015. June 10, 2015. https://westbaysanitary.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/FY2015-16-Budget-Approved.pdf.
West Bay Sanitary District. Performance Measurement Report, Performance Measurements for
the West Bay Sanitary District Using the “Effective Utility Management” Framework, Includes
Data and Analysis for Calendar Year 2014. Undated. https://westbaysanitary.org/wsbd-
prod/resources/1381/MASTER_WBSD_2014-PMR_FINAL.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 55
Westborough Water District
Charles Z. Fedak and Company, Westborough Water District. Management Report, June 30,
2014. December 1, 2014.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/WWD%20Financial%20Statements%20MR%20
2014.pdf.
North San Mateo County Sanitation District, City of Daly City. Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal. Accessed March 18, 2016.
http://www.dalycity.org/City_Hall/Departments/wwr/Divisions/waste_treatment.htm.
Westborough County Water District. Resolution No. 355, Establishing and Consolidating
Reserve Funds and Providing for Appropriations and Contributions to Such Funds. June 27,
1979. Attachment to email from Darryl Barrow, General Manager, Westborough Water District,
March 8, 2016.
Westborough Water District. Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2014
and 2013. Undated.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/WWD%20Financial%20Statements%202014.pd
f.
Westborough Water District. Policy on Director’s Compensation and Expense Reimbursement.
Adopted October 16, 2008.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/Policy%20on%20Director%20Reimbursement.p
df.
Westborough Water District. Rate and Fee Schedule, Adopted and Restated as of September 11,
2014 by Resolution No. 585. September 11, 2014.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/Rate%20and%20Fee%20Schedule091114.pdf.
Westborough Water District. Statement of Income and Expense, Adopted June 12, 2014. June 12,
2014. http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/ADOPTEDBUDGET20142015.pdf.
Westborough Water District. Statement of Income and Expense, Adopted June 18, 2015. June 18,
2015. http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/ADOPTEDBUDGET20152016.pdf.
Election Results
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo
County, CA, November 6, 2001. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2001/11/06/ca/sm/special_districts.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo
County, CA, November 4, 2003. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/11/04/ca/sm/special_districts.html.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 56
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo
County, CA, November 8, 2005. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/sm/special_district.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo
County, CA, November 3, 2009. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2009/11/03/ca/sm/special_district.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo
County, CA, November 8, 2011. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2011/11/08/ca/sm/special_district.html.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal,
School, and Special District Election, November 6, 2001. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2001/nov2001/Official.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal,
School, and Special District Election, November 4, 2003. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2003/nov2003/Master%20Summary%20Report
.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Special Statewide
Election, November 8, 2005. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2005/nov2005/Master%20Summary%20Report
.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal,
School, and Special Election, November 6, 2007. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2007/nov2007/Tally/112707/nov07_final_fusio
n.pdf.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates—Local Offices, Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 6, 2007. Attachment to email from Lucas Morrison, San
Mateo County Registration & Elections Division, March 14, 2016.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School,
and Special District Election, November 5, 2013. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2013/nov/documents/candidaterosterweb.pdf.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School,
and Special District Election, November 3, 2015. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2015/nov_mailedballot/documents/candidaterosterweb.
pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 6, 2007. Attachment to email from Lucas Morrison, San
Mateo County Registration & Elections Division, March 14, 2016.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 57
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 3, 2009. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2009/nov2009/final/nov32009SOV.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 8, 2011. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2011/nov2011/final/SOV_Nov2011.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 5, 2013. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2013/nov/official/Nov2013SOV.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and
Special District Election, November 3, 2015. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2015/nov/official/SOV.pdf.
Bay Area Sewer Agencies
California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. Water
Conservation Portal - Conservation Reporting, Factsheet: February by the Numbers. Accessed
May 2, 2016.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporti
ng.shtml.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region. Cease and Desist
Order No. R2-2009-0020. March 11, 2009.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/board_decisions/adopted_orders/2009/R2-2009-
0020.pdf.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Service Area & Statistics. Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://www.centralsan.org/index.cfm?navid=65.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Financial Information. Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://centralsan.org/index.cfm?navid=78.
City of Oakland. Landmark Clean Water Agreement, Regional East Bay Sewer Consent Decree
2014. Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/s/Sewer/ConsentDecree/index.htm.
City of Oakland, Public Works. Sanitary Sewer System, Flyer 2016 Sewer Service Charge
Website - One Page (1-4-16) Final.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2016.
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/s/Sewer/index.htm.
City of San Jose. Sanitary Sewer Service & Use Charges. Accessed May 1, 2016.
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1661.
City of San Mateo. Sewer System Management Plan. December 7, 2015.
http://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/47516.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 58
East Bay Municipal Utilities District. Wastewater Rate Schedule – Effective July 1, 2015.
Accessed May 2, 2016. http://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/rates-and-charges/#single-family.
San Francisco Water Power Sewer. About the Wastewater Enterprise. Accessed May 2, 2016.
http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=392.
San Francisco Water Power Sewer. Proposed FY 2015-2018 Water and Sewer Rates. Accessed
May 2, 2016. http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5031.
San Francisco Water Power Sewer. SSIP Goals & Level of Service.
http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=668.
San Mateo County Public Works. Sewer Service Rate Information. Accessed March 11, 2016.
http://publicworks.smcgov.org/sewer-service-rate-information.
United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
United States Environmental Protection Agency. News Releases from Region 9, Bay Area
Municipalities Ordered to Protect San Francisco Bay from Sewer Discharges. March 15, 2011.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/c221b52e5e4823d58525785300718f88?OpenDocu
ment.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. News Releases from Region 9, US EPA orders
Marin County sewage collection systems to address chronic sewage spills. April 8, 2008.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/503212C4814C8FF585257427006B9568.
Weigel, Samantha. “Sewer Overhaul to Cost $770M, San Mateo Launching Improvement
Program for Thousands of Customers,” The Daily Journal. March 14, 2016
Other
California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions. “What Is LAFCo.” Accessed
March 18, 2016. http://www.calafco.org/about.htm.
City of Eureka. Wastewater Collection. Accessed May 6, 2016.
http://ci.eureka.ca.gov/depts/pw/wastewater/default.asp.
Elledge, David G. Demystifying the California Property Tax Apportionment System, A Step-by-
Step Guide Through the AB 8 Process. March 2006.
Heberger, Matthew, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, and Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute. San
Francisco Bay Wastewater Treatment Plants Vulnerable to a 100-Year Coastal Flood with a 1.4-
Meter Sea-Level Rise. February 26, 2009. http://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2009/02/Fig25_WWTP_SF.pdf.
Hi-Desert Water District. Wastewater Reclamation Project. http://protectgroundwater.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/Sewage-treatment-system-graphic.jpg.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 59
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Design Flow and Loading Determination Guidelines for
Wastewater Treatment Plants.” Water/Wastewater Technical Review and Guidance/#5.20.
November 2001. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwtp5-20.doc.
Pipe Rehab Specialists. How Long Do Sewer Pipes Last? Accessed May 1, 2016.
http://www.piperehabspecialists.com/how-long-do-sewer-pipes-last/.
San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission. Special Districts in San Mateo
County. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://lafco.smcgov.org/special-districts-san-mateo-
county?f[0]=search_api_multi_aggregation_8%3ASewer/Sanitation.
State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board,
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). SSO Report Form. Accessed
March 17, 2016. https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet.
State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board. Sanitary
Sewer Overflow Reduction Program. Accessed March 18, 2016.
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml.
WaterEUM. About the Effective Utility Management Collaborative Effort. Accessed May 2,
2016. http://www.watereum.org/about/.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 60
APPENDIX A: SEWER PROVIDERS IN SAN MATEO COUNTY
Sewage Collection (36)
Independent (6)
Bayshore Sanitary District
East Palo Alto Sanitary District
Granada Community Services District
Montara Water and Sanitary District
Westborough Water District
West Bay Sanitary District
County Managed (10)
Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District
Crystal Springs County Sanitation District
Devonshire County Sanitation District
Edgewood Sewer Maintenance District
Emerald Lake Heights Sewer Maintenance District
Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance District
Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District
Kensington Square Sewer Maintenance District
Oak Knoll Sewer Maintenance District
Scenic Heights County Sanitation District
City Managed (13)
Belmont Collection System
Brisbane City Collection System
Burlingame City Collection System
Foster City Collection System
Half Moon Bay Collection System
Hillsborough (Town of) Collection System
Millbrae City Collection System
Pacifica (Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant Collection System)
Redwood City Collection System
San Bruno City Collection System
San Carlos City Collection System
San Mateo Collection System
South San Francisco City Collection System
Subsidiary Districts (2)
Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District
North San Mateo County Sanitation District
Unique Systems (5)
San Francisco International Airport Mel Leong Treatment Plant - Industrial Wastewater &
Sanitary Waste Collection Systems
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Collection System
Silicon Valley Clean Water Collection System
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 61
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Collection System
Tower Road Complex Collection System
Wastewater Treatment (9)
Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Facility (operated by Veolia Water)
Calera Creek Water Recycling Plant
Daly City Wastewater Treatment Plant
Millbrae Water Pollution Control Plant
San Francisco International Airport Mel Leong Treatment Plant
San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM)
Silicon Valley Clean Water (formerly South Bayside System Authority)
South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant
Sources:
California Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board, California Integrated Water Quality
System Project (CIWQS). SSO Report Form. Accessed March 17, 2016.
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet.
San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission. Special Districts in San Mateo County. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://lafco.smcgov.org/special-districts-san-mateo-
county?f[0]=search_api_multi_aggregation_8%3ASewer/Sanitation.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 62
APPENDIX B: URBAN SEWER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
System Characteristics of Major Bay Area Sewer Providers
Population Area
(Sq.
Miles)
Forced Main
(Miles)
Gravity Main
(Miles)
Residential
Rate
($/Year)
San Mateo County 765,135 448.0 104.4 1,898 $902a
San Jose City Collection System 998,537 176.6 13.0 2,268 $405
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 476,400 144.0 23.0 1,519 $471
San Francisco Public Utilities Commissionb 864,816 46.9 1,000 $187
Oakland City Collection System 406,253 55.8 0.2 920 $705
Sources:
San Mateo County
Population: US Census Bureau, estimate as of 7/1/15; http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
Area: Land only; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Mateo_County,_California
Pipeline Length: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet
Rate: Average of 10 county-managed and 6 independent district rates for 2015-2016. See Appendix I: Sanitary District Sewer Rates.
San Jose
Population: U.S. Census Bureau, estimate as of 1/1/13;
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=area+of+san+jose+ca&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=population+of+san+jose+ca
Area: Land only; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose,_California
Pipeline Length: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet
Rate: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=1661
Central Contra Costa
Population, Area: http://www.centralsan.org/index.cfm?navid=65
Pipeline Length: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet
Rate: http://centralsan.org/index.cfm?navid=78
San Francisco
Population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco
Area: Land only; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco.
Pipeline Length: Estimates report vary from 900 – 1000; http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=392.
Rate: Estimated from average household size (2.63) times average per capita monthly water consumption (1.72 CCF) times $9.06 for the first four CCF
per month. A CCF is a hundred cubic feet of water, or 748 gallons.
Household Size: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=392.
Water Consumption:
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 63
Factsheet: January by the Numbers, California EPA, California State Water Resources Control Board,
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/conservation_portal/conservation_reporting.shtml.
Rate: http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5031.
Oakland
Population as of 1/1/2013:
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=area+of+san+jose+ca&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=population+of+oakland+california
Area: Land only; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California
Pipeline Length: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet
Rate:
Collection: Flyer 2016 Sewer Service Charge Website - One Page (1-4-16) Final.pdf;
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/s/Sewer/index.htm
Treatment: http://www.ebmud.com/wastewater/rates-and-charges/#single-family.
Notes:
aCounty and independent districts only; excludes rates charged by cities. This is average rate ranging from $360 for Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance District
to $1,595 for Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District.
bData on Forced Mains not available.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 64
Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Major Bay Area Sewer Providers
Sanitary Sewer Overflowsa 2013 2014 2015 Average As %age of SMC
San Mateo County 186 238 155 193 100%
San Jose City 125 101 74 100 52%
Central Contra Costa 46 49 43 46 24%
Oakland 91 108 93 97 50%
Source:
State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board, California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). SSO
Report Form. Accessed March 17, 2016. https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet.
Note:
aSan Francisco is not required to report Sanitary Sewer Overflows to the State Water Resources Control Board because it operates what is known as a combined
sewer system, which includes sewage and storm water.
Sanitary Sewer Overflows per Hundred Miles of Pipeline
Sanitary Sewer Overflows / Hundred Miles 2013 2014 2015 Average As %age of SMC
San Mateo County 9.3 11.9 7.7 9.6 100%
San Jose City 5.5 4.4 3.2 4.4 45%
Central Contra Costa 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.0 31%
Oakland 9.1 10.8 9.3 9.7 101%
Sources: Previous tables: System Characteristics of Major Bay Area Sewer Providers and Sanitary Sewer Overflows by Major Bay Area Sewer Providers.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 65
APPENDIX C: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS SERVING INDEPENDENT SANITARY DISTRICTS
Name Governance Bay-
shore
Westborough Monta-
ra
Grana-
da
East
Palo
Alto
West
Bay
Other Entities Served
SFPUC Southeast
Treatment Plant
5 Directors, appointed
by SF Mayor
San Francisco
Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (Palo Alto)
Part of Palo Alto Public
Works Department
Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Stanford
Sewer Authority Mid-
Coastside (SAM)
6 Directors, 2 each from
City of Half Moon Bay,
Granada CSD, and
Montara SD
City of Half Moon Bay
North San Mateo County
Sanitation District, which
contracts with City of
Daly City Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Part of City of Daly
City Water and
Wastewater Resources
Department
Daly City
Silicon Valley Clean
Water
4 Directors, 1 each from
Belmont, Redwood
City, San Carlos, and
West Bay Sanitary
District
Belmont, Redwood City,
San Carlos
Sources:
City of Palo Alto Public Works-Watershed Protection Group. Clean Bay 2016 Pollution Prevention Plan, Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant.
Undated. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51362.
North San Mateo County Sanitation District, City of Daly City. Sewage Treatment and Disposal. Accessed March 18, 2016.
http://www.dalycity.org/city_hall/departments/wwr/divisions/waste_treatment.htm.
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Sewer System Improvement Program. San Francisco's Sewage Treatment Facilities. Updated 6/14.
http://www.sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=5801.
Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. An Agreement Creating the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. Consolidated and updated as of October 10, 2011.
http://www.samcleanswater.org/destiny/consolidated_jpa.pdf.
Silicon Valley Clean Water. Commission Overview. Accessed March 18, 2016. http://www.svcw.org/about/sitePages/overview.aspx.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 66
APPENDIX D: SEWAGE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BY DISTRICT
Topic Unit of
Measure
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Sanitary System Connections
Population Served Number of
People
4,513 14,050 6,012 6,000 29,000 55,000
Residential Customers - Single
Family
Number of
Units
1,588 3,730 1,556 2,260 3,327 14,092
Residential Customers - Multi-
Family
Number of
Units
22 14 57 101 3,510 4,499
Non-Residential Customers Number of
Units
129 46 351 199 229 610
Connections Number 1,456 3,790 1,937 2,560 3,864 20,000
Equivalent Dwelling Units
(EDU)
Number of
Units
2,163 N/A N/A 3,215 7,720 19,201
Sewer System Data
Gravity Main Pipes Miles 15.0 20.2 23.7 34.0 35.0 200.0
Forced Main Pipes Miles 1.0 0.5 5.8 0.0 0.0 8.0
Pump Stations Number 1 3 41 1 0 12
Effluent Flow Rates
Ave. Dry Weather (ADW)
Flowa
Thousand
Gallons
Per Day
265.0 672.7 390.0 401.0 1,400.0 3,470.0
Ave. Wet Weather (AWW)
Flowb
Thousand
Gallons
Per Day
328.2 721.1 950.0 463.0 5,000.0 9,000.0
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 67
Source: Sanitary Districts data input to Grand Jury, February-March 2016.
Notes:
aAverage Dry Weather Flow (ADW): The average flow of effluent, measured in thousands of gallons per day, when the ground water is at or near normal and a
runoff condition is not occurring.
bAverage Wet Weather Flow (AWW): The average flow of effluent during wet weather, measured in thousands of gallons per day. This is typically higher than
ADW because of the infiltration of storm runoff into the wastewater system.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 68
APPENDIX E: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS BY DISTRICT BY YEAR
Total Number of SSO Locations
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Bayshore 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1
Westborough 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Montara 1 15 11 8 4 5 1 4 7
Granada 3 5 2 5 2 3 5 2 1
East Palo Alto 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
West Bay 68 55 49 41 15 12 10 14 5
Source:
State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Water Resources Control Board, California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS). SSO
Report Form. Accessed March 17, 2016. https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet.
Note: Bayshore amended the Water Resources Control Board value for 2007 (from 1 to 2). West Bay amended the Water Resources Control Board values for
2007 (from 46 to 68) and 2010 (from 40 to 41).
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 69
APPENDIX F: AGE PROFILE OF DISTRICT PIPELINES
Pipeline Age Profile Bayshore Westborough Montaraa Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay Weighted
Average
As %age of Total
2000-Present 11% 30% 12% 3% 16% 11% 12%
1980-1999 60% 20% 20% 26% 15% 16% 20%
1960-1979 25% 50% 34% 65% 25% 15% 25%
1940-1959 4% 0% 34% 0% 44% 34% 28%
1920-1939 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 19% 12%
1900-1919 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3%
Pre-1960 Pipe 4% 0% 34% 6% 44% 58% 43%
Source: District data input to Grand Jury, February-March 2016.
Note: aMontara data did not identify pipeline age for the years before 1980. Although Montara Water and Sanitary District was formed in 1958, its roots go back to
1907 according to its website (http://mwsd.montara.org/about/history). The Grand Jury assumed, therefore, that 50% of its pre-1980 pipe was installed between
1940 and 1959, and that the remaining 50% was installed between 1960 and 1979.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 70
APPENDIX G: SANITARY DISTRICT BUDGETS
Budget for FY 2015-2016
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Operating Income
Permit & Inspection Fees $5,000 $0 $19,000 $0 $0 $50,000
Property Tax Receipts $200,000 $185,000 $230,000 $800,000 $318,000 $0
Sewer Service Charges $1,022,700 $2,313,257 $2,035,943 $1,293,000 $4,500,000 $22,899,707
Other Revenue $0 $0 $47,000 $55,500 $26,000 $624,614
Total Operating Revenue $1,227,700 $2,498,257 $2,331,943 $2,148,500 $4,844,000 $23,574,321
Operating Expenses
Administration & Finance $130,600 $130,760 $466,958 $432,500 $2,025,600 $5,176,446
Collection $189,800 $148,323 $549,260 $379,083 $496,900 $2,893,195
Treatment $840,000 $1,900,012 $707,892 $1,019,855 $1,513,000 $5,881,095
Total Operating Expenses $1,160,400 $2,179,095 $1,724,110 $1,831,438 $4,035,500 $13,950,736
Net Cash Flow From Operations $67,300 $319,162 $607,833 $317,062 $808,500 $9,623,585
Investment Income
Interest Income $12,000 $10,735 $11,281 $6,200 $52,540 $125,000
Total Investment Income $12,000 $10,735 $11,281 $6,200 $52,540 $125,000
Investment Expenses
Collection Capital Projects $311,500 $0 $685,483 $572,000 $715,000 $8,059,500
Treatment Capital Projects $0 $0 $160,666 $210,045 $0 $5,343,044
Total Investment Expenses $311,500 $0 $846,149 $782,045 $715,000 $13,402,544
Net Cash Flow Used by Investments $(299,500) $10,735 $(834,868) $(775,845) $(662,460) $(13,277,544)
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 71
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Financing Income
Connection Fees $40,000 $0 $325,604 $14,100 $18,000 $50,000
Other Financing Income $0 $0 $20,692 $355,000 $0 $1,000
Total Financing Income $40,000 $0 $346,296 $369,100 $18,000 $51,000
Financing Expenses
Loan Interest Expense $0 $0 $46,812 $0 $0 $0
Loan Principal Expense $0 $0 $65,025 $0 $159,000 $0
Total Financing Expense $0 $0 $111,837 $0 $159,000 $0
Net Cash Flow From Financing $40,000 $0 $234,459 $369,100 $(141,000) $51,000
Overall Projected Cash Flow $(192,200) $329,897 $7,424 $(89,683) $5,040 $(3,602,959)
Sources:
Bayshore Sanitary District. Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016. Adopted July 23, 2015. Accessed March 17, 2016.
http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/2000s/FY%202015-16%20Budget%20001.pdf.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Approved Budget FY 2015-2016. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=538.
Granada Community Services District. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budget. Undated. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2015-16_Budget.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Budget Executive Summary. Undated. http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-
fees/MWSD_2015-16_adopted_budget.pdf.
Westborough Water District. Statement of Income and Expense, Adopted June 18, 2015. June 18, 2015.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/ADOPTEDBUDGET20152016.pdf.
West Bay Sanitary District. General Fund and Capital Asset Fund Budgets & Reserves, FY 2015-16, Approved June 10, 2015. June 10, 2015.
https://westbaysanitary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FY2015-16-Budget-Approved.pdf.
Note: District budgets were reformatted to a Grand Jury-designed standard format for comparison across districts. Each district was given an opportunity to
review the reformatting and to make adjustments to capture its data as accurately as possible.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 72
Budget for FY 2014-2015
Bayshore Westborough Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Operating Income
Permit and Inspection Fees $2,000 $0 $14,000 $0 $0 $50,000
Property Tax Receipts $150,000 $179,000 $225,000 $750,000 $318,000 $0
Sewer Service Charges $1,045,000 $2,154,281 $2,181,853 $1,273,000 $4,366,000 $20,909,847
Other Revenue $0 $0 $46,000 $60,900 $30,000 $48,000
Total Operating Revenue $1,197,000 $2,357,181 $2,466,853 $2,083,900 $4,714,000 $21,007,847
Operating Expenses
Administration & Finance $117,000 $124,295 $416,538 $427,900 $1,980,000 $4,713,532
Collection $183,100 $150,840 $490,613 $354,561 $410,400 $2,749,220
Treatment Facility $800,000 $1,771,730 $624,021 $1,082,555 $1,375,000 $5,350,000
Total Operating Expenses $1,100,100 $2,046,865 $1,531,172 $1,865,016 $3,765,400 $12,812,752
Net Cash Flow From Operations $96,900 $286,416 $935,681 $218,884 $948,600 $8,195,095
Investment Income
Interest Income $13,000 $10,117 $31,974 $7,000 $54,000 $125,000
Total Investment Income $13,000 $10,117 $31,974 $7,000 $54,000 $125,000
Investment Expenses
Collection Capital Projects $170,000 $79,000 $821,923 $370,000 $576,000 $7,212,500
Treatment Capital Projects $0 $0 $63,360 $156,500 $0 $4,136,382
Total Investment Expenses $170,000 $79,000 $885,283 $526,500 $576,000 $11,348,882
Net Cash Flow Used by Investments $(157,000) $(68,883) $(853,309) $(519,500) $(522,000) $(11,223,882)
Financing Income
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 73
Bayshore Westborough Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Connection Fees $10,000 $0 $228,488 $14,100 $18,000 $50,000
Other Financing Income $0 $0 $0 $135,000 $0 $1,000
Total Financing Income $10,000 $0 $228,488 $149,100 $18,000 $51,000
Financing Expenses
Loan Interest Expense $0 $0 $108,915 $0 $0 $0
Loan Principal Expense $0 $0 $0 $0 $444,600 $0
Total Financing Expense $0 $0 $108,915 $0 $444,600 $0
Net Cash Flow From Financing $10,000 $0 $119,573 $149,100 $(426,600) $51,000
Overall Projected Cash Flow $(50,100) $217,533 $201,945 $(151,516) $0 $(2,977,787)
Sources:
Bayshore Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Budget. July 24, 2014. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://bayshoresanitary.com/about/2000s/FY%202014-
2015.pdf.
East Palo Alto Sanitary District. Approved Budget FY 2014-2015. Accessed March 17, 2016. http://38.106.4.240/Home/ShowDocument?id=446.
Granada Sanitary District. Fiscal Year 2014/15 Sewer District Budget. Undated. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2014-
15_Budget.pdf.
Montara Water and Sanitary District. Budget FY 2014-2015. Undated. http://mwsd.montara.org/assets/uploads/documents/rates-and-
fees/Fiscal%20year%202014-2015%20budget%20Summary.pdf.
Westborough Water District. Statement of Income and Expense, Adopted June 12, 2014. June 12, 2014.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/Documents/ADOPTEDBUDGET20142015.pdf.
West Bay Sanitary District. General Fund and Capital Asset Fund Budgets & Reserves, FY 2015-16, Approved June 10, 2015. June 10, 2015.
https://westbaysanitary.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/FY2015-16-Budget-Approved.pdf.
Note: District budgets were reformatted to a Grand Jury-designed standard format for comparison across districts. Each district was given an opportunity to
review the reformatting and to make adjustments to capture its data as accurately as possible.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 74
Budget for Bayshore Sanitary District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 75
Budget for Westborough Water District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 76
Budget for Montara Water and Sanitary District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 77
Budget for Granada Community Services District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 78
Budget for East Palo Alto Sanitary District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 79
Budget for West Bay Sanitary District
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 80
APPENDIX H: SANITARY DISTRICT BUDGET ANALYSIS FY 2015-2016
Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
All Revenue $1,279,700 $2,508,992 $2,689,520 $2,523,800 $4,914,540 $23,750,321
Treatment Capital & Expense $840,000 $1,900,012 $868,558 $1,229,900 $2,228,000 $11,224,139
Treatment as % of Revenue 66% 76% 32% 49% 31% 47%
As % of Revenue
Sewer Service Charges 80% 92% 76% 51% 92% 96%
Property Tax 16% 7% 9% 32% 6% 0%
Permit & Connection Fees 4% 0% 14% 15% 0% 0%
Interest & Other 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3%
Rate Analysis
Average Residential Rate $613 $512 $810 $402 $575 $973
Property Tax $200,000 $185,000 $230,000 $800,000 $318,000 $0
# of Customers 1,739 3,790 1,964 2,560 7,066 19,201
Property Tax/Customer $115 $49 $117 $313 $45 $0
Rate w/o Property Tax Benefit $728 $561 $927 $715 $620 $973
Operating Expense Analysis
Miles of Sewer Pipe 16.0 20.7 29.5 34.0 35.0 208.0
Collection Cost/Mile $11,863 $7,165 $18,619 $11,148 $14,197 $13,910
Sources: See Appendix D: Sewage System Characteristics by District. See Appendix G: Sanitary District Budgets. See Appendix I: Sanitary District Sewer
Rates.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 81
APPENDIX I: SANITARY DISTRICT SEWER RATES
Payment Method and Calculation
Type Name How Paid How Calculated
Independent Bayshore Sanitary District Property Tax Bill Water Consumptiona
Independent Westborough Water District Property Tax Bill Water Consumption
Independent Montara Water & Sanitary District Property Tax Bill Water Consumption
Independent Granada Community Services District Property Tax Bill Fixed Rateb
Independent East Palo Alto Sanitary District Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
Independent West Bay Sanitary District Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Crystal Springs County Sanitation Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Devonshire County Sanitary Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Edgewood Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Emerald Lake Heights Sewer Maintenance-Zone 1 Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Emerald Lake Heights Sewer Maintenance-Zone 2 Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Kensington Square Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Oak Knoll Sewer Maintenance Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
SMC County Scenic Heights County Sanitation Property Tax Bill Fixed Rate
Notes:
aDistricts with water consumption-based rates provided an average residential rate. Each single-family residence is charged based on water consumption
during winter months.
bFixed rate: All single-family residences are charged a fixed rate set annually.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 82
Sewer Rates and Growth—Independent Districts
Name 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 % Growth
2011 to
2016
Bayshore Sanitary District $613 $613 $613 $613 $613 $613 $613 100%
Westborough Water District $397 $396 $391 $413 $465 $512 $516 129%
Montara Water & Sanitary District $728 $711 $741 $763 $904 $810 $751 111%
Granada Community Services
District
$365 $383 $402 $402 $402 $402 $402 110%
East Palo Alto Sanitary District $485 $520 $520 $520 $550 $575 $575 119%
West Bay Sanitary District $650 $690 $752 $820 $893 $973 $1,031 150%
Average Rate and Growth $540 $552 $570 $589 $638 $648 $648 120%
Sources: 2015-2016: Provided by Sanitary Districts.
Bayshore
Data submitted by district. Based on 200 gallons per day for an average family.
Westborough
Data submitted by district; based on total units in January and February of each year divided by number of customers times the applicable rate.
Montara
Data submitted by district; average bill based on average water consumed times the applicable rate.
Granada
2014-2015: Bay Area Clean Water Agencies, Sewer Rate Survey 2015. http://bacwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BACWA-Sewer-Rate-Survey-
May-2015.pdf
2013-2014: Granada Sanitary District, Fiscal Year 2013/14 Budget. http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2013-14_Budget.pdf.
2012-2013: Granada Sanitary District, Basic Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, Years Ended June 30, 2013 and 2012.
http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2012-13_Audit.pdf.
2010-2011; 2011-2012: Granada Sanitary District, Basic Financial Statements and Supplemental Information, Years Ended June 30, 2012 and 2011.
http://granada.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/GSD_FY_2011-12_Audit.pdf.
East Palo Alto
2013-2014; 2014-2015: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Agenda Packet July 27, 2014, Resolution 1129.
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=84.
2012-2013: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Agenda Packet May 18, 2013, Resolution 1086, http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=262.
2011-2012: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Minutes, June 7, 2012, Resolution 1065, http://38.106.4.240/home/showdocument?id=112.
2010-2011: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, Agenda Packet, April 5, 2012, Audit for Fiscal Year End June 30, 2011,
http://www.epasd.com/home/showdocument?id=240.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 83
West Bay
HF&H Consultants, LLC, West Bay Sanitary District. Sewer Rate Study, Final Report, April 22, 2015. April 22, 2015. http://westbaysanitary.org/wsbd-
prod/resources/1400/WBSD_FINALReport_22April2015.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 84
Sewer Rates and Growth—County-Managed Districts
Name 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 % Growth
2011-2016
Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance $1,150 $1,595 $1,595 $1,595 $1,595 $1,595 Not
Available
139%
Crystal Springs County Sanitation $1,200 $1,200 $1,350 $1,350 $1,350 $1,350 Not
Available
113%
Devonshire County Sanitary $900 $1,000 $1,025 $1,050 $1,075 $1,100 $1,125 122%
Edgewood Sewer Maintenance $900 $950 $1,025 $1,100 $1,175 $1,250 $1,325 139%
Emerald Lake Heights Sewer
Maintenance-Zone 1
$1,100 $1,130 $1,160 $1,190 $1,220 $1,250 $1,280 114%
Emerald Lake Heights Sewer
Maintenance-Zone 2
$770 $810 $850 $890 $930 $970 $1,010 126%
Fair Oaks Sewer Maintenance $420 $470 $500 $530 $560 $590 $620 140%
Harbor Industrial Sewer Maintenance $310 $320 $330 $340 $350 $360 $370 116%
Kensington Square Sewer
Maintenance
$900 $975 $1,015 $1,055 $1,095 $1,135 $1,175 126%
Oak Knoll Sewer Maintenance $800 $900 $930 $960 $990 $1,020 $1,050 128%
Scenic Heights County Sanitation $950 $1,050 $1,080 $1,110 $1,140 $1,170 $1,200 123%
Average Rate and Growth $855 $945 $987 $1,015 $1,044 $1,072 $1,017 125%
Source:
San Mateo County Public Works. Sewer Service Rate Information. Accessed March 11, 2016. http://publicworks.smcgov.org/sewer-service-rate-information.
County of San Mateo, Inter-Departmental Correspondence, Department of Public Works, Executive Summary - Adoption of Proposed Sewer Service Rates and
Fiscal Year 2011-12 Sewer Service Charges Report for the Ten County Sewer/Sanitation Districts Governed by the Board of Supervisors, July 11, 2011,
http://publicworks.smcgov.org/sites/publicworks.smcgov.org/files/SSC%202011%20BOS%2020110726.pdf.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 85
Sewer Rates and Growth—Combined
Name 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 % Growth
2011-2016
Combined Average Rate and Growth
(Independent and County-Managed
Districts
$743 $807 $840 $865 $900 $922 $870 124%
Consumer Price Index, San Francisco
Area, Annual Rate as of June
2.40% 2.60% 2.60% 3.0% 2.30% 114%
Source:
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Western Information Office, Consumer Price Index, San Francisco Area-February 2016.
http://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/consumerpriceindex_sanfrancisco.htm.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 86
APPENDIX J: BOARD COSTS FOR SANITARY DISTRICTS
FY 2015-2016 Bayshore West-
borough
Montara Granada East Palo
Alto
West Bay
Regular Meeting Compensation $190 $100 $75 $145 $293 $207
Regular Meeting Frequencya Monthly Monthly Twice Monthly Monthly Monthly Twice Monthly
Board Expenses
Directors' Fees $15,000 $5,250 $3,300 $11,000 $56,000 $34,404
Memberships $3,000 $15,816 $5,000 $15,000 $12,000
Meetings and Travel $5,000 $3,350 $1,000 $14,000 $9,000
Other $12,000 $2,000 $6,800 $0
Total Board Expenses $35,000 $24,416 $5,300 $17,000 $91,800 $55,404
Expense/Director $7,000 $4,883 $1,060 $3,400 $18,360 $11,081
Benefits Dental, Life
Insurance for
Directors and
Spouse/Partner
or Children
None None None Dental, Vision,
Health
None
Professional Membershipsb CASA, CSDA,
USA
BAWSCA,
SSF CoC
ACWA,
CSDA
None CASA,
CSDA
CASA, CSDA,
CoC
CASA
Source: District data input to Grand Jury, February-March 2016.
Notes: aExcludes committee meetings
bAssociation of California Water Agency ACWA
Bay Area Clean Water Agencies BACWA
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency BAWSCA
California Association of Sanitation Agencies CASA
California Special Districts Association CSDA
Chamber of Commerce CoC
Underground Service Alert USA
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 87
APPENDIX K: DIRECTOR TENURE BY DISTRICT
District & Directors Date 1st Appointed / Elected Years of Service Next Up
Bayshore
Iris Gallagher 12/7/93 22.5 2017
Walter Quinteros 2/25/93 23.3 2019
Norman Rizzi 1/24/02 14.4 2019
Mae Swanbeck 9/22/05 10.8 2019
Kenneth Tonna 8/26/04 11.8 2017
Average Tenure 16.6
Westborough
David J. Irwin 1/12/12 4.4 2019
William O. Lopez 12/11/08 7.5 2019
Janet G. Medina 8/12/04 11.8 2019
Tom Chambers 11/4/97 18.6 2017
Perry H. Bautista 11/7/89 26.6 2017
Average Tenure 13.8
Montara
Jim Harvey 11/4/03 12.6 2018
Dwight Wilson 11/5/13 2.6 2018
Bill Huber 11/5/13 2.6 2018
Kathryn Slater-Carter 11/4/03 12.6 2016
Scott Boyd 11/4/03 12.6 2016
Average Tenure 8.6
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 88
District & Directors Date 1st Appointed / Elected Years of Service Next Up
Granada
Leonard Woren 11/4/97 18.6 2018
Matthew Clark 11/4/03 12.6 2016
Jim Blanchard 8/29/13 2.8 2016
David Seaton 11/5/13 2.6 2018
Ric Lohman 6/17/04 12.0 2018
Average Tenure 9.7
East Palo Alto
Glenda Savage-Johnson 11/6/07 8.6 2019
Betsy Yanez 11/6/07 8.6 2019
Joan Sykes-Miessi 11/4/03 12.6 2017
Goro Mitchell 11/6/07 8.6 2019
Dennis Scherzer 11/3/09 6.6 2017
Average Tenure 9.0
West Bay
Edward Moritz 8/1/09 6.8 2017
Fran Dehn 8/1/08 7.8 2019
David Walker 11/1/99 16.6 2019
Roy Thiele-Sardina 11/5/13 2.6 2017
George Otte 5/9/16 0.1 2017
Average Tenure 6.8
Sources:
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo County, CA, November 6, 2001. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2001/11/06/ca/sm/special_districts.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo County, CA, November 4, 2003. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2003/11/04/ca/sm/special_districts.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo County, CA, November 8, 2005. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/sm/special_district.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo County, CA, November 3, 2009. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2009/11/03/ca/sm/special_district.html.
League of Women Voters of California, Smart Voter. Special Districts Contests for San Mateo County, CA, November 8, 2011. Accessed March 4, 2016.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2011/11/08/ca/sm/special_district.html.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 89
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 6, 2001. Accessed
March 4, 2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2001/nov2001/Official.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 4, 2003. Accessed
March 4, 2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2003/nov2003/Master%20Summary%20Report.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Special Statewide Election, November 8, 2005. Accessed March 4, 2016.
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2005/nov2005/Master%20Summary%20Report.pdf.
San Mateo County. Official Election Results, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special Election, November 6, 2007. Accessed March 4,
2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2007/nov2007/Tally/112707/nov07_final_fusion.pdf.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates – Local Offices, Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 6, 2007. Attachment to
email from Lucas Morrison, San Mateo County Registration & Elections Division, March 14, 2016.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 6, 2007. Attachment to
email from Lucas Morrison, San Mateo County Registration & Elections Division, March 14, 2016.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 3, 2009. Accessed March 4,
2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2009/nov2009/final/nov32009SOV.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 8, 2011. Accessed March 4,
2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2011/nov2011/final/SOV_Nov2011.pdf.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 5, 2013. Accessed March
4, 2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2013/nov/documents/candidaterosterweb.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 5, 2013. Accessed March 4,
2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2013/nov/official/Nov2013SOV.pdf.
San Mateo County. Roster of Candidates, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 3, 2015. Accessed March
4, 2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2015/nov_mailedballot/documents/candidaterosterweb.pdf.
San Mateo County. Statement of Vote, San Mateo County Consolidated Municipal, School, and Special District Election, November 3, 2015. Accessed March 4,
2016. https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/results/2015/nov/official/SOV.pdf.
Note: All districts provided additional detail such as dates of appointment not available from voting records.
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 90
APPENDIX L: REFERENCES TO “DISASTER” OR “EMERGENCY” IN BOARD MEETING MINUTES
The Grand Jury reviewed the most recent 12 months of minutes from each of the six independent
districts. We searched each document for the following words: “disaster,” “emergency,” and
“emergencies.” The following records the actual text including these words in the minutes of the
districts.
None of the minutes record discussions regarding emergency preparedness or response. The
emergencies referred to in the minutes refer to localized sewer blockages or overflows.
Bayshore
4/23/15 The Maintenance Director said that he has not heard from the Daly City
Water/Wastewater Department with regard to providing emergency and
preventive maintenance to the District.
There was one emergency generator alarm; however no problem was
found.
5/28/15 None
6/16/15 None
6/25/15 In light of this information, Mr. Yeager wrote them a letter and explained
that the District will not provide emergency service again.
7/23/15 Since the District's emergency alarm system uses a phone line, it was felt
that AT&T is more reliable.
8/27/15 Broken link
9/17/15 None
10/22/15 Broken link
11/19/15 Daly City Library site. President Gallagher was notified of an emergency
meeting on December 3.
He explained what the District had in mind as it plans for the future, i.e.,
outsourcing the routine, preventive and emergency services for the
collection system.
12/17/15 None
1/28/16 Mr. Landi provided the South San Francisco Public Works/City Engineer
with information to help him evaluate the possibility of providing
preventive and emergency service for the District. They are meeting next
week.
2/25/16 None
3/24/16 None
Source: Bayshore Sanitary District, Public Meetings, Minutes on Dates Listed Above.
http://bayshoresanitary.com/meetings/index.html.
Westborough
4/9/15 None
5/14/15 None
6/18/15 None
7/9/15 None
8/13/15 None
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 91
Westborough
9/10/15 Engineer Pakpour reported some of the benefits were the State would
cover a larger portion of disaster losses, if the District is included in a
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, Flood
Mitigation Assistance and Severe Repetitive Loss Grant Programs.
10/8/15 None
11/12/15 None
11/21/15 The Board of Directors met to hold a hands on training session on how to
restore water service in the event of a major disaster.
12/10/15 None
1/14/16 None
2/11/16 Broken link
3/12/16 None
Source: Westborough Water District, Board Meeting Schedule, Minutes on Dates Listed Above,
http://www.westboroughwater.com/board_meetings.htm.
Montara
3/5/15 None
3/19/15 None
4/2/15 None
5/7/15 None
5/21/15 References to emergency related to water services
6/4/15 References to emergency related to water services
7/16/15 References to emergency related to water services
8/6/15 None
9/3/15 None
10/1/15 None
10/15/15 None
11/5/15 None
12/3/15 None
1/7/16 None
2/4/16 None
3/3/16 None
3/17/16 Review and possible action concerning sewer emergency repair on Cedar Street
Source: Montara Water District, Board Meetings, selected pages provided by Montara. Montara minutes are
embedded in Agenda Packets, making them time consuming to locate.
Granada
3/19/15 None
4/23/15 None
5/21/15 None
6/18/15 None
7/23/15 None
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 92
9/3/15 None
10/15/15 None
11/19/15 None
12/17/15 Broken link
1/21/16 None
Source: Granada Community Services District, Agendas/Minutes, Minutes on Dates Listed Above,
http://granada.ca.gov/agendaminutes/.
East Palo Alto
2/5/15 None
3/5/15 None
4/9/15 None
5/7/15 None
6/4/15 None
6/18/15 None
7/2/15 None
8/6/15 He asked for a report on the current policy on units not on the rolls, what
are the rights on private property in the event of an emergency, and what
is done in the event of a known extra unit where access is denied.
9/3/15 None
10/1/15 None
11/5/15 None
12/10/15 None
1/7/16 None
Source: East Palo Alto Sanitary District, About EPSD, Board Meetings Agendas and Minutes, Minutes on Dates
Listed Above, http://www.epasd.com/about-epasd/board-of-directors/agendas-and-minutes.
West Bay
4/22/15 None
5/6/15 None
5/27/15 None
6/10/15 None
6/24/15 None
7/15/15 None
7/29/15 None
8/3/15 None
8/12/15 None
8/26/15 None
9/15/15 None
10/14/15 None
10/28/15 None
11/4/15 None
11/24/15 None
12/9/15 None
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 93
West Bay
1/13/16 None
1/27/16 None
2/10/16 Responded to emergency pump station call due to power failure.
2/24/16 None
3/9/16 None
3/23/16 None
4/13/16 None
Source: West Bay Sanitary District, About Us, Agenda & Minutes, Minutes on Dates Listed Above,
https://westbaysanitary.org/about-us/agenda-minutes/.
Issued: June 29, 2016
Page 1 of 3
September 7, 2016
Hon. Joseph C. Scott
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO’S RESPONSE TO THE 2015-16 SAN
MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED "SAN MATEO COUNTY’S
COTTAGE INDUSTRY OF SANITARY DISTRICTS"
Honorable Judge Scott,
This letter was approved by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at its public
meeting on September 7, 2016.
Below is the City of South San Francisco’s response to the 2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil
Grand Jury Report entitled "San Mateo County’s Cottage Industry of Sanitary Districts"
Specifically, the Grand Jury recommends that the Board of the Westborough Water District and
the City Councils of Daly City and South San Francisco do the following:
R4. Form a committee of Board members (Westborough Water District), Council members
(Daly City, South San Francisco), and staff from each to discuss the assumption of
services provided by Westborough Water District into Daly City and/or South San
Francisco. Evaluate alternatives and determine the benefits to ratepayers. Issue a report
with recommendations and a plan by September 30, 2017. Work with California Water
Service Company on this initiative.
City Response: Staff from the City of South San Francisco, the City of Daly City and the
Westborough Water District have met and thoroughly studied the Grand Jury recommendation
that Daly City and/or South San Francisco assume the services provided by Westborough Water
District. At this time the City of South San Francisco declines to further evaluate the suggestion
that the City of South San Francisco assume the services currently provided by the
Westborough Water District.
The boundaries of the Westborough Water District cover a portion of the City of South San
Francisco, and a small area of Daly City. Sanitary sewer services for the Westborough Water
District are provided by the City of Daly City-North San Mateo County Sanitation District. The
Westborough Water District also provides potable water service to approximately 4,000
residential, commercial and irrigation service connections, with water being supplied from the
City and County of San Francisco Water Department.
The City of South San Francisco does not provide water service to its residents or businesses
anywhere in the City, as this is largely provided by California Water Service, and to a lesser
Page 2 of 3
degree by Westborough Water District. At this time the City of South San Francisco, as a policy
decision, does not desire to become a water utility and thus has no interest in assuming this
function from the Westborough Water District.
The City of South San Francisco, in partnership with the City of San Bruno, does operate and
maintain an outstanding wastewater treatment facility. This facility is serviced by a well
maintained system of sanitary sewer lines and sanitary sewage pump stations in that portion of
South San Francisco closest to the treatment facility. The geographic area served by the
Westborough Water District is located in the part of South San Francisco that is furthest from
the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (SSF-SB WQCP). There are
no existing large diameter sewer pipelines suitable for conveying Westborough's sewage to the
SSF- SB WQCP.
The costs of connecting the Westborough Water District sanitary sewers to the South San
Francisco sanitary sewer system are economically prohibitive. Capital costs associated with this
project would include, at a minimum, the addition of many miles of large-diameter sewer
piping to convey sewage from the Westborough area to the SSF-SB WQCP and, a treatment
capacity upgrade to the existing treatment plant. The multi-million dollar capital cost of the
project would have to be financed with debt service.
If South San Francisco were to become the sanitary sewer treatment provider for that area
currently served by the Westborough Water District, a connection fee would be assessed on
Westborough’s connections. In addition, the City of South San Francisco, in its operation of the
SSF-SB WQCP, would also collect annual sewer service fees from the residents of
Westborough. Given the expected capital costs, and associated connection and annual fees,
little financial benefit is seen for the rate payer currently in the Westborough Water District.
Additionally, it is unlikely that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) would
approve Westborough's sewage addition to the SSF-SB WQCP because of the San Francisco
Bay’s assimilative capacity limitations. These limitations are reflected in the San Francisco Bay
Basin Plan which limits the amount of new pollutants that are allowed to be discharged into San
Francisco Bay. Even though treatment plants such as the SSF-SB WQCP are operated in
compliance with stringent National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
discharge requirements, the effluents from these plants still may contain trace pollutants that
may contribute to the overall deterioration the eco system in San Francisco Bay.
Lastly, to gain SWRCB approval, receiving water studies must be conducted that then must
conclude that the addition of Westborough’s sewage to the SSF-SB WQCP treatment plant
would not pose any adverse impacts to San Francisco Bay. Prior to making a final decision on
whether or not to allow this additional discharge into the Bay, public hearings would be held to
more fully vet the issue, at which, staff anticipates a substantial opposition from environmental
protection groups.
For the above reasons, the City of South San Francisco does not agree with the Grand Jury
recommendation R4.
Page 3 of 3
If you have any questions, please contact the City of South San Francisco City Manager, Mike
Futrell, at (650) 877-8500.
Sincerely,
Mark Addiego
Mayor, City of South San Francisco
2015-2016 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury17
Figure 4:Map of Independent Sanitary Districts in San Mateo County
Source: San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-747,Version:1
Report regarding the League of California Cities resolution to prioritize traffic safety,confirming Councilmember
Garbarino as the appointed member of the General Resolutions Committee to vote on behalf of the City of South San
Francisco,and confirming the candidates on the Peninsula Division Executive Committee ballot.(Marian Lee,Assistant
City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council discuss the League of California Cities (LOCC)support for the adoption
and implementation of initiatives to prioritize traffic safety throughout California and the 2016-2017 Peninsula
Division Executive Committee Officer ballot and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Initiatives to Prioritize Traffic Safety
The LOCC’s 2016 Annual Conference General Resolutions Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday,October 6,
2016 at 1:00 p.m.in Long Beach.At that time,the General Resolutions Committee will consider and make
recommendations on one proposed resolution committing the LOCC to support transportation safety policies like Vision
Zero and Toward Zero Deaths.
Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths are transportation safety policies that have been adopted a growing number of U.S.
cities to reduce the number of traffic fatalities,a widespread problem in America today.The overall goal of the LOCC
resolution is to:
·Encourage implementation of projects and programs that prioritize safety;
·Help California elevate the health and safety of its residents; and
·Position LOCC as a leader in national efforts to promote a culture of safe mobility for all.
Please see Attachment 1 for more information about the LOCC resolution.This packet of information was provided by
the LOCC.
Councilmember Richard Garbarino has been appointed to the 2016 Annual Conference General Resolutions Committee.
Based on discussion and direction from City Council,Councilmember Garbarino as a member of the committee,will vote
on behalf of South San Francisco accordingly.
2016-2017 Peninsula Division Executive Committee Officers Ballot
The election for the Executive Committee for the Peninsula Division of the League of California Cities will be held on
Friday,October 7,2016 at the Division’s Annual Breakfast meeting during the LOCC Annual Conference in Long Beach,
CA.
Each city is entitled to one vote for each office on the attached ballot.The completed ballot should be mailed back to the
League of Cities by Thursday,September 15,2016 or can be delivered in person at the Annual Breakfast event on Friday,
October 7, 2016. Please refer to Attachment 2 for ballot information provided by the LOCC.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-747,Version:1
Based on discussion and direction from City Council, the ballot will be appropriately completed and submitted.
FUNDING
There is no budget impact.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council of South San Francisco take the following actions:
·Consider the LOCC’s proposed resolution to support Vision Zero/Toward Zero Deaths strategies,and
other transportation safety programs;
·If in favor of the resolution,direct staff to prepare a letter of support from the Mayor addressed to the
President of the LOCC;
·Confirm that Councilmember Richard Garbarino,as the appointed member of the General Resolutions
Committee, will register and attend the General Resolutions Committee meeting to vote; and
·Review and confirm the offices on the ballot that will receive a vote from the City of South San
Francisco.
Attachments:
1.League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Packet
2.2016-17 Peninsula Division Executive Committee Officers Ballot
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/1/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™