HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 39-2010RESOLUTION NO. 3'9-2010
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SEWER CAPACITY
CHARGE INCREASE FOR FISCAL YF,AR (FY) 2010-2011
AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO
INCLUDE THE SEWER CAPACITY C~-IARGE
WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City of South San Francisco ("City") was adopted in
1999 by Resolution No. 139-99, and contains policies rc;quiring that future residents and
businesses equitably share the costs associated with providing wastewater service to new
development in the City (Policies 5.3-G-5, 5.3-I-5); and
WHEREAS, development anticipated under the General Plan would require replacing
and upgrading existing sanitary sewer infrastructure faccilities and constructing new facilities to
adequately serve the community; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted aFive-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP),
which describes all of the City's capital improvement projects, including the infrastructure
necessary to adequately serve development anticipated under the General Plan, which CIP is
available for review at the City of South San Franciscio Public Works Division, 550 N. Canal,
San Francisco, CA 94080; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted and enforces a sewer capacity charge, imposed on new
development and certain redevelopment, which charge was last updated in 2000, and is set to
expire June 30, 2010; and,
WHEREAS, the City contracted with Bartle Wells Associates, who prepared the study
supporting to the 2000 charge, to analyze the need for an. updated charge and demonstrate the
nexus between the proposed updated charge and the view development that will be responsible
for paying the charge (City of South San Francisco Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis, August 2009,
hereafter "Study"); and,
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2010, the City Council held a lawfully noticed public hearing
to consider the proposed sewer capacity charge.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before
it, which includes without limitation, the South San Francisco General Plan; the South San
Francisco Municipal Code; the Five-Year Capital Impt•ovE;ment Program; the City of South San
Francisco Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis, prepared byr Bartle Wells Associates, dated August
2009; all reports, minutes, and public testimony subrriitted as part of the City Council's study
session on February 17, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the
City Council's duly noticed public hearing on April 2~8, :?010, the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The City of South San Francisco Sewer Capacity Fee Analysis, prepared by
Bartle Wells Associates, dated August 2009 (Exhibit A~, is incorporated by reference as part of
this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting; the record for these proceedings
are located and available for review during regular business hours at the City of South San
Francisco Public Works Division, 550 North Canal, South San Francisco, C.A 94080, and in the
custody of Public Works Director, Terry White.
4. The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth in this Resolution, is a "capacity charge" as
that term is defined in Government Code, § 66013(b)(3~), the purpose of which is to finance the
replacement and renewal of existing sanitary sewer facilities and the upgrade and construction of
new sanitary sewer facilities to reduce impacts caused by future development and redevelopment
in the City.
5. The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth in this Resolution does not exceed the
estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for ~vhic;h the charge is imposed, because, as
demonstrated in more detail in Exhibit A, the charge irr~poses a proportional share of City's total
sewer system investment, including specified future capital improvement projects, on new
development requesting a connection to the sewer system ,and redevelopment resulting in an
increase in the use of the sewer system.
6. Although the Study indicates that the per Equivalent Dwelling Unit charge of
$3,514 should be imposed for single family residential unit:;, to more accurately and equitably
reflect residential units' impact on Sewer Facilities, for residential users, the Sewer Capacity
Charge should be imposed on a per "Fixture Unit" basis. As defined in this Resolution, 13.3
Fixture Units equal one Equivalent Dwelling Unit. The Superintendent of the Water Quality
Control Plant, after consultation with several jurisdictions, including other cities, the State Water
Resources Control Board, the East Bay Municipal Utility District, has determined that 15 gallons
per Fixture Unit serves as a reasonable average measurement of daily flow per fixture unit. As
demonstrated in the Study, an Equivalent Dwelling Unit equals 200 gallons of flow, therefore, in
terms of flow, 13.3 Fixture Units would equal one Equivalent Dwelling Unit (13.3 Fixture Units
x 15 Gallons of Flow =200 Gallons of Flow = Equivalent Duelling Unit).
7. Collection, management, and expenditiure o:f the Sewer Capacity Charge will
comply with the requirements of Government Code § 66013, because as demonstrated in this
Resolution, the charge and any interest accrued will be deposited in a separate fund, and the City
will annually report on the monies collected and expended.
8. In adopting and imposing the Sewer Capacity Charge, the City has complied with
the procedures for adoption described in Government Gode § § 66016, 66017, and 66018,
because the City held a lawfully noticed public hearing on. April 28, 2010, at which oral and
written presentations could be made, the proposed capacity charge is to be adopted by resolution,
and the proposed capacity charge will not become effective until July 1, 2010, which is more
than sixty days from the date of the pubic hearing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the entirety of the record as described
above, and for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, including the incorporated Exhibits, the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco, hereby adopts the Sewer Capacity Charge, as
set forth below:
I. Definitions.
A. "Equivalent Dwelling Unit" (EDU) shall mean a unit of measurement, which as
described in the Study, is equivalent to 200 gallons of daily flow plus 0.39 pounds per day of
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) plus 0.28 pounds per day of total suspended solids (TSS).
B. "Facilities" shall mean those facilities that are described in the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program and the Study, and that are necessitated in whole or in part by new
connections to the Sewer Facilities or increased usage df e:~isting connections. "Facilities" shall
also include comparable alternative facilities, should future circumstances, including but not
limited to changes in projections of development in the region, unforeseen maintenance issues,
or infeasibility of certain capital improvement projects, necessitate construction of such
alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later determines in accordance with
applicable law (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between the development within the
City and the need for alternative facilities; (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the
facilities listed in the Five-Year Capital Improvement ~rol,~ram and Study; and (3) that revenue
from charges charged pursuant to this Resolution will b~ usedl only to pay the charge payors' fair
and proportionate share of alternative facilities.
C. "Fixture Unit" shall mean a unit of measurement; 13.3 Fixture Units shall equal
one Equivalent Dwelling Unit.
D. "Sewer Capacity Charge" shall mean cone-'time charge imposed at the time a
user newly connects to the Sewer Facilities, directly or indirectly, or upon a user increasing their
use of the Sewer Facilities, as described in Section II avid further set forth in this Resolution.
E. "Sewer Facilities" shall mean the gravity collection lines, pump stations, a
wastewater treatment plant, a disposal system, and other related apparatuses and appurtenances,
used by the City as a means of collecting, treating, and' disposing of wastewater from residential
and non-residential users.
II. Sewer Capacity Charge Imposed.
A. Effective July 1, 2010, in accordance with California Govenunent Code § 66013,
a Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid at times and in the amount prescribed in this
Resolution, on users that connect to the Sewer Facilities for the first time, and on users that
increase their sanitary sewer usage due to: (1) changes in or any improvements to residential uses
resulting in the addition of new Fixture Units; or (2) ' changes in or any improvements to non-
residential uses, resulting in an increased Equivalent Dwelling Unit calculation for the use.
B. A replacement or reconstruction of a r~sider,~tial or non-residential structure that
has been damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, explosion, wind, earthquake, riot, or other
calamity or act of God, shall not be subject to payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge, provided
that (1) there is no change in use of the structure; and (2) the number of Fixture Units or
Equivalent Dwelling Units in the replaced or reconstructed structure do not exceed the number of
Fixture Units or Equivalent Dwelling Units in the damaged or destroyed structure. Any excess
Fixture Units or Equivalent Dwelling Units shall be subject to the Sewer Capacity Charge.
III. Amount of Sewer Capacity Charge.
A. For residential. users, the amount of the S'~ewer Capacity Charge shall be equal to
two hundred sixty-four dollars and twenty-one cents ($2164.21) per Fixture Unit, and as adjusted
pursuant to Section IX of this Resolution. The number off' Fig;tu.re Units for a particular residential
use or unit shall be determined by Chief Building Official, or his or her designee, in accordance
with the current California Plumbing Code.
B. For non-residential users, the amount of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be equal
to three thousand five hundred fourteen dollars ($3,514) per Equivalent Dwelling Unit, and as
adjusted pursuant to Section IX of this Resolution. The r~umbe.r of Equivalent Dwelling Units for
a particular non-residential use shall be determined by t:he Water Quality Control Plant
Superintendent, or his or her designee, in accordance with the following formula:
EDUs = (0.00347 x Flow) + (0.362 x ~Oll) + (0.589 x TSS),
where "Flow" equals the user's average daily flow measured in gallons per day, "BOD" equals
the user's biochemical oxygen demand measured in pounds per day, and "TSS" equals the user's
total suspended solids measured in pounds per day. Anon-,residential user's Flow, BOD, and
TSS shall be determined by the Water Quality Cont~•ol Plant Superintendent, or his or her
designee.
C. For mixed-use projects that contain a residential component, the amount of the
Sewer Capacity Charge shall be equal to the sum of (i) the Sewer Capacity Charge that would be
imposed on the residential portion of the project pursuant too this Section, and (ii) the Sewer
Capacity Charge that would be imposed on the non-residential portion of the project pursuant to
this Section.
IV. Time for Imposing and Payment of Sewer Ca~acit}' Charge.
A. For residential projects and the residential portion of mixed-use projects, the
Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed and paid prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
B. For non-residential projects, and the non-residential portion of mixed-use
projects, the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be imposed' and paid prior to issuance of a building
permit, except that the Water Quality Control Plant Supperintendent, or his or her designee, may
allow for payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge at a T'~ater date, provided that in no case shall a
final. certificate of occupancy be issued prior to pay~rnent of the applicable Sewer Capacity
Charge.
V. Establishment of Sewer Capacity Charge Find.
The existing "Sewer Connection Fee Fund" is hereby renamed the "Sewer Capacity
Charge Fund," and shall be the fund into which all monies collected pursuant to the Sewer
Capacity Charge shall be deposited.
VI. Use of Sewer Capacity Charge Revenue.
In accordance with California Government Cade Se-ction 66013(c), the revenues raised
by payment of the Sewer Capacity Charge shall be planed iri a separate, interest bearing account
to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest which. they generate. Such revenues and
interest shall be used only for the purposes for which thie Sewer Capacity Charge was collected,
which are the following:
A. To pay for acquisition of the Facilities.
B. To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property acquisition for, and
reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, ithe Facilities.
C. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed or reconstructed by the City
with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless such funds were
obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to lie used for the Facilities.
D. To reimburse persons who have designa>red and constructed or reconstructed any
of the Facilities with prior City approval and have entered into a reimbursement agreement.
E. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Sewer Capacity Charge program, including, but not limited to, the cost of
studies, legal costs, and other costs of adopting and upd~.ting t:he Sewer Capacity Charge.
VII. Accounting.
A. In accordance with California Government Code Section 66013(d), the City shall
make available to the public, within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, and may
include as part of the City's annual financial report, the following information for that fiscal
year:
A description of the charges depolsited inn the fund.
2. The beginning and ending balance of the account and the interest earned
from investment of moneys in the fund.
3. The amount of charges collected in than fiscal year.
4. An identification of the following:
(i) Each public improvement on which charges were expended and
the amount of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost of
the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one source of funding
was used.
(ii) Each public improvement o:n which charges were expended that
was completed during the fiscal year.
(iii) Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in
the following year.
5. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the Sewer
Capacity Charge Fund. The information provided, iri the case of an interfund transfer, shall
identify the public improvements on which the transfei`red money are, or will be, expended. The
information, in the case of an interfund loan, shall include; tlhe date on which the loan will be
repaid, and the rate of interest that the fund will receive can the loan.
B. The information required pursuant to this Section 8 may be included in the City's
annual financial report.
C. The information prescribed in this Section 8 shall not apply to.
1. Money received to construct p!ubhc facilities pursuant to a contract
between a local agency and a person or entity, including, but not limited to, a reimbursement
agreement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65003.
2. Charges that are used to pay existing debt service or which are subject to a
contract with a trustee for bondholders that require a different: account of the charges, or charges
that are used to reimburse the local agency or to reirrAburse a person or entity who advanced
funds under a reimbursement agreement or contract fmr facilities in existence at the time the
charges are collected.
VIII. Master Fee Schedule
The City of South San Francisco Master Fee Schedule is hereby amended to include the
Sewer Capacity Charge, as set forth in this Resolution.
IX. Sewer Capacity Charge Adjustments.
Annually, beginning January 1, 2011, the Suer Capacity Charge shall automatically
adjust by the percentage change in the San Francisco Constnzction Cost Index (CCI) as reported
in the Engineering News Record for the twelve-month period ending in October of the previous
year. The adjusted per Fixture Unit Sewer Capacity Charge; fir residential users shall be rounded
to the nearest hundredth of a dollar. The adjusted per equivalent Dwelling Unit Sewer Capacity
Charge for non-residential users shall be rounded to the'nearest whole dollar.
X. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Sewer Capacity Charge.
The Sewer Capacity Charge set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City
Council in reliance on the record of these proceeding, described above, including the CIP and
Study. The City may continue to conduct further study a.ncl analysis to determine whether the
Sewer Capacity Charge should be revised. When addlitiona.l information is available, the City
Council may review the Sewer Capacity Charge to determine that the Sewer Capacity Charge
amounts are reasonably related to the impact of new ar expanded usage of the Sewer Facilities.
In addition to the inflation adjustments pursuant to Section IX, the City Council may revise the
Sewer Capacity Charge, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, to incorporate the
findings and conclusions of further studies.
XI. Severability.
Each component of the Sewer Capacity Charge and all portions of this Resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Sewwer Capacity Charge or any portion of this
-Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforcealble b,y a body of competent jurisdiction,
then the remaining Sewer Capacity Charge componenlts and./or Resolution portions shall be and
continue in full force and effect, except as to those components and/or Resolution portions that
have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of thie C'it:~ of South San Francisco hereby
declares that it would have adopted this Resolution' and each section, subsection, clause,
sentence, phrase, and other portion thereof, irrespective of 1;he fact that one or more section,
subsection, clause, sentence, phrase, or other portion mad be- held invalid or unconstitutional.
XII. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall become effective immedialtely upon its passage and adoption. The
Sewer Capacity Charge adopted by this Resolution, hgwever, shall not become effective, and
shall not be imposed until July 1, 2010.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution vuas regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at ~ regular meeting held on the 28th day of
April., 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Richaud A. Garbarino, and Karyl Matsumoto,
Vice Mayor Kevin Mullin and Ma oar Mirk Addieg_o
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST': ///~-~/ G~
k
Exhibit A
City of South San Francisco Sewer Clapacil:y Fee Analysis
Barlte Wells Associrates,
August 2009
1409691.2
City Cif South San
Francisco
Sewer rapacity Fee
A,nalys~s
FINAL
August 2009
]BARTLE V~ELLS ASSOCIATES
Independent Public Finance Advisors
1889 Alcatraz Avenue;
Berkeley CA X4703 x'714
Tel. 510/653-399
Fax 510/653-31769
www.bartlewe~ls.com
-10-
that portion of the cost of those facilities attributable to new development. Fee revenues
can only be used to fund construction of the identified. improvements.
IYrethodology
The City of South San Francisco operates a sewer collection system that serves most land
within the city limits. It also jointly owns and operates a water quality control plant that
treats sanitary sewer flows from the City, San Bruno,'Colma, and a portion of Daly City.
In Apri12009, average daily flows from South San Franc:isc:o to the treatment plant were
approximately 5.46 million gallons per day.
The total capacity of the plant is 13.0 million gallons der day, of which the City of South
San Francisco owns 73.08% (9.5 mgd). The balance bf the capacity is owned by the City
of San Bruno. -
lvluch of the land within the sewer service area {both ~Uvithin the City and in other areas
served by the treatment plant) is built-out. In-fill development and continued industrial
development in the East of 101 area is expected to continue increasing flows to the
treatment plant in the near term. The City completed ~~a large upgrade at the treatment
facility in 2002 and 2003.
BVSTA proposes to use an "average cost" methodology for calculating the sewer capacity
--:..fee. In this methodology, each new connection to the'sewer system pays the same
' ".average cost" for capacity- as current users for the ex~sting and fiiture capital facilities.
The proposed sewer capacity fee urould include both ~. "b'uy-in" to the existing collection
~:' and treatment capacity, as well as an "expansion and utpgrade" component, which
..represents a new connection's propoi-tiorial share of future capital improvements which
benefit all users.
Because of limitations in the ability to project future slewer J~DUs based on existing land
uses, BWA recommends that the City use a "eapacity~based." approach to calculating the
capacity fee. Tlus means that the study will first demonstrate the "cost of capacity" (both
in terms of existing capital assets and futuue improver~ients and upgrades), and then come
up with a unit cost of capacity by dividing those costs by the amount of capacity
provided. The sewer capacity fee can then be calculated based on the amount of capacity
desired by the new connection.
Table 1 includes an analysis of the existing users and total capacity of the sewer system
(South San Francisco share only).
-12-
Table 1 .
City of South San Francisco
System Capacity Analysis
(lbs/day)
Flow d BOD TSS Percent
Existing user flows and loadings (1) x.46 14,663 15,346 57.5%
Capacity available for growth (SSF share} .04 10,958 9,526 42.5%
Total plant capacity (2) x.50 25,621 24,872
(i) From Apri12009 flows and loadings to the Water Quality Congrol Plant
(2) Estimated by Carollo Engineers and City staff
Capacity Fee Analysis
Valuation of existing facilities For the purposes of calculating the "buy-in" portion of
the capacity fee, BWA first developed a valuation of'the existing sewer system, including
both collection and treatment facilities.
The primary data source far determining the value of existing sewer facilities is the fixed
asset listing. This details all.fixed assets in service irr tl~e sfrwer utility. (It is also
included as an Appendix to this report). To determine a fair value of the assets included
~. on the listing, BWA uses the Replacement CostNew',Less ]Depreciation (RCNLD)
method..This method allows for the adjustment of the original cost of an asset based on
:its age and condition to arrive at an approximate true'value of that asset. The original
cost of the asset (Uook value) is inflated to 2008$ usi~ag the Engineering News Record -
Construction Cost Index. This develops an estimate pf the replacement cost of the asset.
From this amount, the accumulated depreciation oftle asset is subtracted, to account for
wear and tear and age.
BWA calculated the RCNLD from the fixed asset detail for buildings, infrastructure, and
treatment facilities only. BWA did not include equipl<nerit ar vehicles with lifespans
shorter than 10 years. The RCNLD for all assets incluuded in the fixed asset detail is
$ S 1.914 million.
Collection lines are not included in the fixed asset detail. In order to develop a fair
valuation of the collection lines in place, BWA calculated a. replacement cost new for the
system based on estimates of the fiill replacement colt tada;y per linear foot) of those
lines, multiplied by the length of lines in place. Fromm this replacement cost new for the
inventory, BWA subtracted an estimate of the total d~preci<~tion based on the weighted
average depreciation of those assets on the fixed asset detail. In total, the estimated
RCNLD of the collection system (including manholes} is $'72.131 million.
Talcen together, BWA estimates that the fair value of existing capital assets is $161.223
million. Table 2 details this calculation.
-13-
Table 2
Clty of South San Francisco
Flied Asset Valuation Summary (1)
•
Original Cost ,
eplacement
Cost New (2)
epreciallon
CNLD
Buildings $22,685,871 $35,1514,237 $3,546,287 $31,647,950
Less estimated share San Bruno/Colma (6,107,036) (9,474,289) (954,660) (8,519,628)
Treatmentfacilitles 75,256,573 88,144,492 14,197,752 73,946,740
Less estimated share San Bruno/Colma (2D,259,069) (23,728,497) (3,822,035) {19,906,462)
Infrastructure and other improvements 4,115,036 !5.290.189 544,332 4,745,857
Subtotal buildings, treatment facilities, infrastructure • $75,691,376 $9:1,426,132 $13,511,676 $81,914,456
Collection system Linearfeet Realc. Cost f3} R~ulc. Cost New peoreciation RCNLD
g° 360,578 $140 50,480,220 7,147,648 43,332,572
8° 91,433 $158 14,446,414 2,045,512 12,400,902
10° 23,070 $174 4,014,180 568,380 3,445,800
12° 14,035 $186 2,610,510 369,630 2,240,880
14" 2,863 $200 51'2,600 81,076' 491,524
15" 17,523 $216 3,784,966 535,925 3,249,043
18" 16,777 $224 ;t,7:i8,048 532,113 3,225,935
20" 980 $228 223,440 31,638 191,802
21" 3,256 $234 7Ei1,904 107,880 654,024
24° 6,423 $240 11,541,520 218,268 1,323,252
27" 7,030 '$245 11,722,350 243,873 1,478,477
30" 449 $250 112.25D 15.894 96,356
Subtotal collection system $84,028,404 $11,897,837 $72,130,567
Manholes 2,389 $3,500 $8,3EI1,500 $1,183,930 $7,177,570
_. (1) Building, treatmentfacililies, and infrastructure from 2007!06 fixed asset d~ lail, including all pump stations
(2) Replacement cost new estimated by inflating. origina l cost of asset l0 20D8 using E;NR-CCI
< (3) Replacement cost new far. collection system estimat ed by multiplying linealr feet in service by engineering cost estimates
Future capital improve»~e~ats The City has an approved five-year capital improvement
program for the sewer utility. Projects are divided intp two categories; non-routine (or
major one-time improvements) and routine (mostly xeJplaceznent and rehabilitation). All
of the projects in the "Non-12outil~e" category are regihired upgrades and improvements to
the existing treatment and collection system that are rtuquired in oxder to provide service
for both existing and future users at the cLUrent plant ~apaci.ty. They benefit all users of
the system in proportion to the amount of capacity de~nande:d. The total value of these
projects is therefore included in the total system valualtion for the existing capacity.
For projects in the routine category, City staff developed project-by-project bene~xt
allocations between existing and future users. Only that portion of each project which
benefits new development is included in the capacity fee cal'.culation. In total, $b0,000 of
$2.670 million of the routine projects cost is allocated to new development. The balance
is considered replacement or rehabilitation only.
Of note, those projects in the sewer CI:P which are recpve:red in the East of 101 Impact
Fee calculation are not included in the sewer capacity fee..
Capital projects of note include:
-14-
• Reliability Upgrades: This project includes a number of improvements at the
treatment plant, including upgrades to the grid, removal system and digesters.
These upgrades can be considered as benefititag the full build-out capacity of the
system; as such, they are included in the over~.11 capacity fee calculation.
• Recycled J~Yater'Project: This project will treat seccindary effluent at the
treatment plant to Title 22 tertiary standards. ,'This ~-roject will provide benefits to
both existing and future development in the City by reducing potable water
demands and increasing available groundwater supplies.
• Solar/Wind/Cogeneration Projects: These projects will involved installation of
solar, wind, and cogeneration assets at the tre~.tment plant. This wi11 increase the
supply of renewable energy at the facility and~reduce future operating costs for all
users.
Table 3 details the capital improvement program.
-15-
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 o c~ o p
'N t
O
C
~ N
~- ~ ~
°
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
?
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O~ 0 0 0
u
-
O y - t~ C)
O
~
~ _ 6g
~
0 0 o a a o a a o U c~ a p
~~ O 000000 OY- CJ C) O
QOOOOOC) O ~ C~~O
;~ ~ Op0000 O~,>`~OO
to to
~ r rrrrr r ~ ro0
[O M
Ltl1 N
H3
0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
aooooo0 0000000 00000
OOO 0000 4000000 OOC~p 0
O ~ I1~ r CR l1~ 0~
rtD1~Mr00 O O O In 0 0 )t) O C? C~ 0 0
CDO~O'cFCQh I~ W OC1Df~
~ Nt~3MNMt7Of.q 63NNr U V7~-'cD
00 N~~N N
IfJ
Bf}
aoooo 00 0 0l0
O 00 00 O O
d, O l~ ~
~
~"~ O
~
M C? M 00
'd'
Y- N
~; N ~}
N ~
°o ° °o °° o °o °0 0 0° °~ °o
M O 000 00 0 O O_
t-- LC) a0 O h O O O In U3
N O U O W
M r O r d' ~ r W CA
r N
r
O 'd' ~c= N lti b9
N ' t•/}
OOOOp OD O O °i0
N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d O
O
'
T-
~ )n CA [~ O 1~
a0 N Cn O O 1n Ifl
O
O
d' ~ r Cn CA
r M N M -fj u7 '~" N
p ~
'd'NN ~
N ..
000000
000000 0000000 oio
0000000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
T
r
~
ui u% ri cri o cfl
(papl~l~O CA
0 0 0 trl o o ui o
Md'lCldrCaCA OD
G t*3 M ~k -N G9~ r r lA
~
O
N ~ ~
O 00000
O 0 0 0 0 0 000 O O OI,O C3C>O O
O O O 0 O OI 0 0 0 0 O
O OOCa00 OOC) 0 00100000
O
~ r't~t~ott
~ M M M O N ao0 o ui oociC:io ttl
M d• 4] r Ch c0',I` oq O oD r
Ln N I` r r 63 r l() c-- N
O
O
N y}
rb/}-
HY
.-~
~
~~
_
~ ^ IA
.c .Iqc ~ ti ~ T3 Zl
~ N .a ILu m
~
I
O ~ o ~ ~
lL LL L ~ ~a~~ '~
~, l~ •-z'
'
C N O
L y
~
,
c N IU U `~ ~ d ° o a rn +' o'' ~~~ C~
U ~ a~
m ~ ~ .~
ro r~
a~
~~
> ~,
.
m o o Eti
N° c ~ ,
.
o a ~
~ m m as c C~ n.
n
. ° a
~
~ ~
c m ~ a ~ °
~ o
m
e n. a~ °~ ° c p .~ a~ al l m (~ Z: °~ o
t
° c4 cA i ~- ~•- Q o
.
~ C
c
~ m
m o m~
w
M~U y
oU ~
~~
E-~ ~ ~ o
o0.... o ~ olti~.~ a
°~= ro aa~~w.~ 1°n
°
m o a~ co
~C~ ~ m o o a°i ~ m a
U
~~ ~ a 4~ m m ro~m~~ °-' ~
~~~ o~u3~UU)t~rn oC7cna~t9(Ycnrnz:i_iQu~
F- U !A Z ~
O)
O
1]
ro
'D
O3
'L7
C
m
~.
O
O
O
O
O
~r
CA
C
E
O)
S
c~'~
0 0
:.-' _
tlj C
O) C
'~~ U
•• V 43
NCO d
U ~
O) ~
C
'd
~ L
"D C
°
~ rn
c ~
~ O
~ O
C ~
CO O
_ N
. ~ O
~ N
~ ~
U a
as
pl
~ r ~
~ O
~~~•3
c0 C ~ C
r •~-- O
~ .~
N ~ ~
C71 '^ ~ M
O'~ H}
a ~ ~
Yao-°
O N `=~
~ ~
O In
N ~ c~. ~
o ° ~ .~.
~a
a~ ~
U
m m aUi
~~ ~ a
Ur~,~ o.
a•°i o o m
o~c° o
CL ?~ tv nl
L1C.CL
QOt-1-
v v ~
-16-
Calculation of Fee Under the chosen methodology, !,BWA. first developed a total
estimated valuation for the existing system (Table 2){ To this amount, the estimated total
investment required in upgrading the existing system) to meet build-out conditions was
added (Table 3, Capital Improvement Program). In dotal, BVUA estimates that the total
system investment existing and future projects included- is $188.791 million.
BWA allocates this investment among .the three trea ' ent parameters of the system.
Treatment assets a:-a allocated 50% to flow, 25% to OD, and 25% to TSS. Collection
lines are allocated 95% to flow and 5% to TSS (as co~.lecrion systems can impact the
amount of solids introduced into the system by I/I). finally, buildings and other
infrastructure are assigned allocations of 34% flow, a$nd 33% BOD and TSS respectively.
The weighted average allocation of capital assets to t~eatxnent parameters is
approximately 69% to flow, 14% to BOD, and 17% tb TSS. (This weighting is used in
the calculation of the non-residential ED~(Js discussed later in the report).
This investment provides the City with 9.5 mgd of total dry weather average day
capacity: At design strengths for BOD and TSS, the treatment plant capacity is 25,621 ~~
lbs/day and 24,872 lbs/day respectively.
Dividing the cost of capacity in its functional groups low,, BOD, and TSS) by the
amount of capacity provided gives unit cost of capaci~y for each treatment arameter.
P
The cost of flow capacity is $13.79 per gallon per days, while BOD capacity is $1,037.88
per lbs/day. TSS capacity is $1,255.83 per lbs/day.
. Nlultiplyivg these unit costs by the design flows of onje single family equivalent (200
.;.,gallons per day, 234 mg/1 BOD and 168 mg/1 TSS) gi~/es the capacit~~ fee for one EDU;
_,- $3,514.
'Table 4 details these calculations.
Levying the Capacity Fee The City would levy the c~pac:it`~ fee calculated in this report
on new development requesting connection to the sewler system, or on redevelopment
projects of existing connections where the use of the s~~ewer ;>ystem changes. For all
single family residential properties, the $3,514 fee wouuld apply. The city charges multi-
family properties the same fee fox each residential uni~ of a project.
For commercial and industrial connections, a fee should be levied based on the estimated
average daily flow and strength of tivastewater to be discharged to the sanitary sewer,
using the unit cost of capacity for the three discharge parameters calculated in Table 4.
BWA will include in its final report recommended fee'calculations for a sample of
commercial and industrial connections.
-17-
Table 4
City of South San Francisco
System Capacity Analysis
Allocation of.capitat assets Total Flow BOD TSS
Treatment plant ~ $54,040,000 ~ 50% 25% 25%
Collection lines and manholes 79,308,000 95% ~ 0% 5%
Buildin4s and infrastructure 27,874.000 34% 33% 33%
Total $161,222,000 $111,840,000 $22,708,000 $26,674,000
Capital improvement program (non-routine} $27,509,000 $19,083,000 $3,875,000 $4,551,000
Capita! improvement program (routine) $60,000 $41,622 $8,451 $9,927
Total system investment $188.791,000 $130,964,622 $26,591,451 $31,234,927
Calculation of unit cost of capacity Fiow (gpd) (Ibslday) (Ibs/day)
Plant capacity 9,500,000 25,621 24,872
Urjit cost of capacity $13.79 $1,037.88 $1,255.83
One EDU design parameters (1) 200 0,39 0.28
One EDU capacify fee $2,757.15 $405.10 $351.91
;To~a~l~riee • ~ • ~ e_~~d~ ~ ea~pac~~.ta'r ee~ = Gum ".~ ~..~4tr~+~~
~,- ~~~n~
(1) Per EDU design parameters from 2000 connection fee study
.Non-Residential Capacity Fees For the purposes of~levying~capacity fees on non-
~residential connections, BWA recommends that the C~ty first calculate the numbex of
"`EDUs" of capacity the new connection will demand.', That is, the City should determine
how many single family equivalents the new connection represents.
BWA has developed the following updated formula fir the purposes of calculating the
number of EDli~s for a new connection. Flow is measjured in gallons per day, BOD is the
amount of Biochemical Oxygen Demand in lbs/day, and TS S is the amount of Total
Suspended Solids in Ibs/day. The formula is based on one p;DU being 200 gpd, and 0.39
lbs/day BOD and 0.281bs/day TSS, and the weighted ~.1loeation of capital assets
discussed previously.
EDUs = (0.00347 x Flow) + (0.362 x BOD) + (0.589 ~ TSS;I
Once the number of EDUs is determined, the City cani levy the per EDU capacity fee
multiplied by the number of EDUs in service to arrived at the total sewer capacity fee for
the project.
-18-
Sewer CapacitylCapacity Fee Comparison
Table 5 summarizes a survey of neighboring provider$ of sewer service. Currently, the •
City charges the smallest sewer capacity fee of those providers surveyed. After adoption
of the proposed fee, the City would be slightly below the :median.
Table 5
City of South San Francisco
Sewer Connection/Capacity Fee Survey
Tatal
City of Faster City
City cf San Mateo
City of Brisbane
Redwood City
$2,000
2,282
2,523
3,096
City of Millbrae 3,309
City of San Bruno 3,495
i1~ ~
ll
l
i
a
ms i
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 3,625
West Say Sanitary District ~1) 4,289
City of San Carlos 4,500
..City of Belmont ~ 5,174
~:: Town of Hillsborough ~ 10,757
City of Palo Alto 10,876
City of Half Moon. Bay ~ 15,839
.
Montara Water and Sanitary District ~2) 19,296
• (1) Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley
(2) Montara and unincorporated parts of San Mateo Countly •
Nett Steps
The fast step in adopting an update to the capacity feed would be to present this nexus
study at a City Council meeting for feedback. After acceptance of the nexus report,
BWA will present the findings of this study at a public hearing to consider changes to the
sewer capacity fee, if necessary.
As with the fee adopted in 2000, BWA recommends that the sewer capacity fee
ordinance or xesolution include an indexing mechanism. With this indexing, the City can
update the fee annually to keep pace with changing capital costs. BWA recommends
that the City update the sewer capacity fee in January pf each year. This change could
happen administratively by staff, and would be based fan the percent change in the
Engineering News Record -Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for
the 12-months ending the preceding October.
-19-
Estimated SKS Fee tncrease from Proposed ISewer Connection Fees
Estimate @ Current Rate
Estimate @ Proposed Rate
Estimated connectio fee $1,729.OOlEDU
Office $1,1 4,416.00 638.76 EDU
Lab $1,8 8,413.80 1092.20 EDU
Total ~ $2,9 2,829.80 1730.96 EDU
Estimated Connecti n fee $3,514.OOlEDU
Office $2,2 1,114.20 629.23 EDU
Lab $3,8 2,970.00 1105 EDU
Total $6,0 4,084.20 1734.23 EDU
Estimated tncrease t this Project
Increase to SKS Project Total $3,101,254.40
Flows were based on 50% occupancy for lab and 50°1°'~ occ;upancy for office.
Flows for office use were based on 175gpd/1000 sq ft
Flows for lab use were based on 250 gpd/1000 sq ft
TSS and BOD estimates used were averages of all G~nentech,Buildings
that-are currently permitted by the WQCP.
8/24/2009
C. Prudhel
-20-
F'ri~tn: Janet Smith-Reimer, Managing Principal, BAE
Jessica Kondrick, Analyst
R~~ South San Francisco Fee Study
~~tie: December 8, 2009
Tin`s. memorandum summarizes an analysis of development fee$ for South San Francisco,
conducted during November and early December H09. The City of South San Francisco
coi3imissioned this fee study in order to evaluate how its fees ct~mpare with other Bay Area cities,
p~i~i.eularly those cities in San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santal Clara Counties which occasionally
coii'ipete with South San Francisco as locations for R & D deve~.opment projects or major tenants.
Methodology
T`h~ City of South San Francisco provided BAE with mast key assumptions for this study,
including comparison cities; four prototype projects, and estimates of South San Francisco fees for
tli~~=four projects.
T~a~coniparison cities selected by South San Francisco for analysis were (in alphabetical order):
`• Foster City
• Mountain View
•~ Palo Alto
• Redwood City
• San Francisco
• San Mateo
• Sunnyvale .
Fob each city above;~BAE was requested to analyze the fees for ~four~ prototype projects, including:
• Mixed-Use project, with 100 housing units and 5,000 square feet of ground floor retail
• R & D building totaling 150,000 square feet
• ~"'Hotel with 200 rooms
• Grocery store totaling 40,000 square feet ~ r
Bay Area Economics
Headquarters 510.547.9380
2 _ 1,285 66th Street fax 510.547.9388
San Francisco gay Area Sacramento New York Washington, D.C 1 Emeryville, CA 94608. [email protected]
bavdreaecnttomics_cnm
S~~cific assumptions regarding each prototype Were also provaded by City staff, and are
summarized below:
Mixed-Use
Residential + R & D
As'sumpti'ons Restaurant Buildings, Hotel Grocery Store
~lt:~ Size (Acres) 2.00 5.00' 2.00 2.16
~i`bss Building Size (sq. ft_) 120,000 150,000' 110,000 ~ 40,000
fVilmber of Floors 5 3 8 ~ 1
Number of Residential Units 100 ~ NA 200 NA
a~i5rage Unit Size (sq. ft.} 900 NA 350 NA
Restaurant Space (sq. ft.) 5,000 NA 5,500 NA
;.labs/1,0000 sq. ft. 2.00 2.22 2.38 2.00
Tbfal Jobs 10.0 333.0 261.8 80.00
Trips Generated/1,000 sq. ft. 48.00 5.30 10.50 48.00
Taal Trips Generated 240.00 795.00, 1,155.00 1,920.00
1?~atk/Open Space None None None None
,Building Valuation (per city} $ 16,133,050
~ $ 18,583,500'
_~~ ~~~i $ 12,887,600 $.2,213,200
Feet analyzed included all building permits, other penniks and',application processing fees, and
development impact fees_ For each comparison city, BAE obt~.ined the published fee chart,
cdlculated all fees (see Tables 4 through 10), and reviewed ke}~ assumptions and calculations with
s~a~ff members of each city.
$AE determined that several fee categories should be excluded from the analysis, as prof led
b~10w:
• School Impact Fees. Although the cities varied in their published rates, these fees are
capped by state regulation, and school districts routine~y nicrease these fees on. a regular
cycle; thus, these fees are excluded from the analysis a~ all cities can theoretically
maximize these fees at any point in time
• Building Standards Administration Special Itevolvipng ]aund. Tn accordance with SB
1473, the State of California now charges a fee for every building permit; in the amount of
$4.00 per $100,000 of building valuation: Since these ;fees are consistently charged by ail
cities, these fees are not included in the estimates shov~kn in. this memorandum.
• BM12In-lieu F'ee. In addition, it should be noted that the in-lieu fee for affordable
housing is not calculated for this memorandum. This approach was taken because South
-22-
3,1n 3~ South San Francisco Fees ' _____
Mixed-Use Rasldentlal +
Restaurant
R $ D Building
Hotel -
Grocery Store
es _
Current With Proposed
Park Fee 8
Sewer Ca Fee
Current vVith Propose
Park Fea I~
Sewer Ca F d
&
e
Current With Proposed
Park Fee & Sewer
Ca Fee
Current
Wllh Proposod Park Fea
8 Sewer Ca Fee
eullding Permit and Fla`rt Check Fees
Buildin Permit _ - $67,591.00 $67,591.00 ;77,391.00 $77,391. $54,807.00 $54,607.00 $11,911.00 $11,9f1.00
8ulldin Plan Check ' _ ..,,_ $43,934.15 $43,934.15 $50,304.15 $60,304.1 5 $35,494.55 $35,494.55 $7,742.15 $7,742.15
Plumbin Permit _ $5,908.75 $5,908.75 $7,682.50 $7,682. $5,902.50 $5,902.50 $2,288.75 $2,288,75
Mechanical Permit $9,894.06 , $9,894.08 $9,497.81 59,49?. 1 $8,074.06 $8,074.06 51,557.50 ;1,557.50
FJectrlcal Permit $4,900.00 $4,900.00 $5,360.00 5$,360. 0 $4,292.50 $4,292.50 $3,199.06 $3,799.08
Ene Fees _
General Plan Melnten~tlc`Fee $24,199,58 524,199.58 $27,87525 $27,875. 5 $19,331.40 $19,331.40 $3,319.80 $3,379.80
Green Bulldln Fee ~ '
Waste Mana emenl P an; evlew Faes 5439.34 $439.34 $503.04 $503. $354.95 $364.95 $77.42 577.42
Tech-related Fees $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25. 0 525,00 $25.00 525.00 $25,011
Seismic/Strop Motlar_(,Fees SMIP 53,387.94 $3,387.94 $3,902.54 53,902. $2,706:40 52,708.40 $464.77 5484.77
Fire Review/ Perrnlt Fr~i<~,, $27,036.40 $27,036.40 $30,856.40 53Q,958, 0 $21,842.80 $21,842.80 $4,764.44 $4,764.40
Plan Review ,,~ $4,055.46 $4,056.46 $3,869.55 $3,889. 5 _ $O.OD 50.00 $0.00 SD.DD
Des( n Review Board,,.;, 55,600.00 $5,600.00 5700.00 5100, 0 $700.00 $700.00 $100.00 S700.00
Public Works Fees _,
Other PermltslProee~s"jj_i Fees _
Noise Insula0on Fea ,;_-_ . ____
Park and Rec Tax
Park.and Rec Ptan Ct~~ltand ins ecllon Fee '
Solar Permit ,_
Conslrucllon lax
Le al $2,000.00 $2,000.00 52,000.00 $2,000. $2,000.00 52,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00
Fish and Game Reviet~IL. ~,~. 52,043.00 $2,043.00 $2,043.00 52,043. $2,043.00 52,043.00 $2,043.00 $2,043,00
TDM Review Fee _ $200.00 $200. 0 r
Develo ment Im act;F,~esl Other Faes
Child Care $188,500.00 $188,500.00 $85,500.00 585,500. D $19,1300.00 $19,800.00 $27,200.00 $27,200.00
_
O ter Polnl OverpassF,de NA NA $181,695.73 $181,695.7 5263,973.05 5283,973.05 NA NA
Traffic lm act Fee $735,000.00 $735,000. $228,394.00 $228,394.00
_
Flra/Police
Art In Public Places .`_ _ _
Libra
paw _
$2,196,000.00
$3,394,440.00
5717,150.
.5563,860.00
5172,320.00
PublirJ Gommuni Faollltles
5ewerlm act Fee _
5ewerCa act Fee ~ _ ~
- NA
5254,491.51
NA
$517,225.00
$239,400.00
$280,945.21
5239,400.
$570,989.8 ~
$119,700.00
5363,176.45
5119,700.00
$738,115.70
-NA
5105,330.68 -
NA
5214,072.88
Communi Slebllizatiii"fees - - -
Jobs-Housiri Lipka h~~e ~ ~ _
Sense of Place Fea
5haiiow Impact Fee „_ r .
Tree In lieu Fee
Tdtal 52,040,000.19 $4,301,179;68 #1,744,051.18 52,752,045.8 ;1,152,417.66 $2,091,218.91 5173,223.53 5454,285.73
Per Unlt or Per,~q,~t $28,400.06 $43,011.80 511.63 #10.3 Sitt.dB 519.01 54.33 511.36
' _ ~.
Fees provided by Clty of South Sah Francisco -
Plumbing, Eleclripl, aiii! INechanlcal Fees calculated by South San Francisco building permit software.
Tech- related fees inclbcla the Permit Program Maintenance Fee, based on 2009 Planning fees.
The Design Review e$a'fi! includes a $600 base fee, plus 550 per dwel8ng unit for residenilal, and $700 for commercial ust}s.
Legal Fees, Flsh and ~ar:Tt'e according l0 2009 Planning fees.
The Transportation Dei4idt5d Management Review tee ($200} applied to R8D development only.
Childcare Impact Fees erb as fo0ows:
Residential (per unit) $1,851.00 -
Relall (ps.f} $0.68
R8D (p.s.~ 50.57
Hotel (ps.f.) $0.18
Oyster Point Overpass Fee is applied to R$D and hotel development scenarios only.
Citywide Traffic impac~ Fees are as follows:
Retal) (p.s.f) $20.33
OfOce/R8D (p.s.f} $4.90
Hotel (per room) $1,141.97
Current 5SF Par1r tee 'applies to residentlat only. Esltmated by city staff at 52,198,000 total for mbted-use project.
The Proposed Park FeA vtrould apply to elf land uses. Proposed fees currently being reviewed Intamaity by staff. -
The Sewer Impact Fees were calculated bl/ the City. RelaB and of0ce uses assume 400 gallons per S,ODO square feet. tarojss area is mulUplled by (gallons produced !square feet} then multiplied by $3.99.
Hotel uses assume 150 g&ilons of waste water produced per roo ~1 led by $3.99. -
The Proposed Sewer 6Sfiiiclty Fee assumes 13.3 fodure unit ($3,514) er residential unit AddWonal fees calculated by Lh@ Clly.
Sources: South San Frafii:isco Maslen Fee Schedule, 2009; Planning Department, 2009; Buliding Department, 2009; SAE, ;2009.
- 23
~x
m
0
0
tJ
N
uQ
~N
7 A