HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05; City Council; 2261-1; Sewage Treatment Capacity Phase III Enlargement to Encina Water Pollution Control Facilityi
Mt 1,111 Ur LAKLZ)VAU, UALIVUKI11/k
t--late
-7-�� 1j
Agt.nda BiI1 `.so. .
24—Supplement
III
Feb 5. 1974
' Referred
To:
Subject:
Submitted By:
Sewage Treatment
Capacity Phase
Enlargement
to Encina Water
111
Pollution Control
Facility City
Engineer
Statement of the
Matter
z
Preliminary studies have been initiated by the JAC Committee regarding
the future expansion of the Encina Treatment Plant. This expansion is
commonly referred to as Phase 11.1. Each agency must make a determination
as to the sewage treatment capacity the agency will require as part of
Phase 111. Financing of such increased capacity is an integral part
of the determination for this future increased capacity., Several options ;
are available to the City and the attached report is an attempt to explain'
these various options. ;
i
Exhibit
"1" Engineering Department Report
Staff Recommendations
See Engineering Department report
AB No.
City Hanager's Recommendation
Date: February 5, 1974
In reviewing this matter since it was last before the
City Counci.., various Council members have made suggested
changes to that original proposal. Rather than try to put
these suggestions all into a single proposal, which is
sometimes difficult, Exhibit 'C' has tried to provide the various
alternatives discussed by the Council in a form which will allow
you to better understand the results of each.
The recommended option is to set the per unit connection fee
at $250.00 with an effective date upon a o tion of the
ordinance which would be approximately 7, 1974. The
option recommended includes a "Grandfather Clause" which would
allow existing units a period of five years to connect at the
present rate of $50.00.
The report should be read carefully. A number of assumptions are
made. Keep in mind that most of these assumption, if absent,
would dictate an even higher fee.
It is recommended that Council approve an increase and instruct
the Attorney to prepare the necessary ordinance. The Council should
further instruct the staff to prepare a recommended fee for commercial
co n6dfl1nAYPg4a1 uses and return it to the Council as soon as possible.
2-5-74 - Continued to 2-6-74.
2-6-74 - The Council accepted
the City Attorney was
documents.
the City Manager's recommendations and
directed to prepar3 the appropriate
(see supplements 1 and 2, council action on 2-19-74 and
3-6-74 - Original AB2261 presented 1-2-74)
-2-
SLr/AGE T REATI•iEN T CAPAC i T Y S T uu Y
CITY OF CARLSBAD - SEWER SERVICE AREA
EXCLUDES LA COSTA AREA (LCWD SERVICE AREA)
BACKGROUND
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) provides sewage
treatment for the City of Carlsbad and five other agencies (Vista
Sanitation District, Buena Sanitary District, San Marcos County
Water District, Leucadia County Water District, and Encinitas Sanitary
District). This Facility was initially constructed by Vista and
Carlsbad in the mid 1960 s and at that time Carlsbad's "capacity" was
1.62 million gallons per day (MGD) in the Treatment Plant, and 3.15
MGD in the Ocean Outfall. The Ocean Outfall capacity exceeds the
treatment plant capacity because the outfall was initially designed
for a significantly longer design life. 'n any event, for the
purposes of this report, ocean outfall capacity will not be discussed.
The City of Carlsbad financed its share of the construction costs of
d
the facility (including treatment plant, outfall, trunk lines, force
mains, and pumping stations) with a bond issue.
Unused funds from the sale of these bonds were placed in trust for
Future facility expansion.
The tax rate of $0.29 per $100 of assessed evaluation was set in
order to retire the bonds —,
Prior to the system's completion,, Buena Sanitary District joined
Vista and Carlsbad, and the capacity of the treatment plant was
increased to 4.5 MGD (Carlsbad's share was 1.83 MGD).
San Marcos County Water District was the next member to join the EWPCF
and at that time the treatment plant capacity was increased from 4.5
d
MGD to 6.75 MDG. This construction project was known as Phase I
(expansion). Carlsbad's capacity was increased from 1.83 MGD to 2.26
MGD. It is important to note that this increase in capacity was
funded by "selling" a percentage of ownership in reserve capacity of
various units of the treatment facility. As an example, Carlsbad's
capacity in the ocean outfall went from 3.29 MGD upi to 4.07 MGD and
San Marcos' went from 0 MGD to 1.34 MGD. This is where the term
"buy -in" came into being. i.e. San Marcos bought ownership of a
portion ,-)f the facility and Carlsbad used the buy -in money to pay for
the increase in capacity.
The last agencies to enter into the use of the EWPCF are Leucadia
County Water District (LCWD) and Encinitas Sanitary District (ESD).
By the terms of the now famous "Fifth Supplement to the Basic Agree-
ment ", LCWD and ESD are (among other things) to:
1) "buy -in" to the existing facilities as to capacity
2) have no ownership in the system
3) enlarge the capacity of the treatment plant from 6.75 MGD to 9.75 MGD.
4) enlarge the capacity of the ocean outfall from 8.0 MGD to 24.0 MGD.
This construction project is known as Phase II (expansion). This
project is currently under construction and when Phase 11 is completed,
Carlsbad's plant capacity increases slightly from 2.26 MGD to 2.43 MGD.
Carlsbad's capacity in the ocean outfall will go up from the existing
4.07 MGD to 6.88 MGD (although the percentage of "capacity" goes down
from '50.9%.of 8.0 MGD 'to 28. 66% of 24.0 MGD) .
There is still considerable dispute as to how the "buy=in" monies are
to be distributed.
In 1971, the Encina Joint Sewerage Agency had a regional sewerage study
prepared by Brown and Caldwell. This report projected ahead for future
-2-
plant expansions, referred to as Phases III - VI, During these last;
3 years, references have been made to the next major plant expansion
as Phase 111.
Also, during these last 3 years, a significant growth pattern emerged
in the North County area where the rate of development rapidly out-
paced the ability of some of the member agencies to provide sewage
treatment services. San Marcos County plater District approached, and
in Pact, exceeded their treatment capacity rights. With Phase III
expansion "lead time" of 3=5 years, San Marcos imposed a moratorium
on future sewer connections. This moratorium included a portion of
La Costa known as Meadowbrook Unit A. The City of Vista was also
rapidly approaching its capacity rights and initiated a partial mor-
torium aimed primarily at higher density multiple residential develop-
ments. Projections by LCWD indicated that sewage flow would approach
their treatment capacity almost simultaneously with Phase II enlarge-
ment becoming operational in mid 1974.
Carlsbad had the largest "reserve" or unused sewage treatment capacity
of the member agencies but alas, at the current growth rate would run
out of capacity prior to a major expansion being completed (Phase ill).
;
What happened between July and December of 1973 may seem like dull read-
ing to the uninformed, but suffice to say that the idea for Phase II -A
was conceived, revised, designed, processed, negotiated, and contracted
with remarkable speed considering all the red -tape involved. At
several points during this period it appeared that Phase II -A would
not become a reality.
Phase II -A is now under construction (concurrently with Phase 11) and
treatment plant capacity will increase from 9.75 MGD (Phase 11) to
13.75 MGD. Ca rlsbad's capacity will go from 2.43 MGD (Phase II) to
3.43 MGD.
-3-
Once again Carlsbad's share of the construction costs for this
increase in capacity comes from "buy -in" monies. An important
point to keep in mind is that, over the years, since bonds financed
the construction of the initial treatment plant and facilities,
Carlsbad has financed the increase in sewage treatment capacity from
1.52 MGD to 3.43 MGD (more than doubled) without requiring additional
local dollars.
Now'that Phase II -A is under construction, the Joint Advisory Committee
(JAC) of the Encina Joint Sewerage Agency has initiated studies foi-
the design and construction of the next major expansion to be known
as Phase III.
1
PHASE III EXPANSION
It may seem incongruous that JAC is pushing ahead on Phase III when
the existing treatment plant capacity will be more than doubled (6.75
r
MGD to 13.75 MGD) within the next 6-12 months. However, the "lead
time" for Phase III is at least 331 years. We are hopeful that Phase
III will be operational in late 1977, which ;s about the same time
that the various agencies will be again running out of capacity. In
order to keep the Phase 1-II project on schedule, the JAC must now
i
give direction to the consultants (Brown and Caldwell) as to what
treatment plant capacity each agency will require upon completion of
Phase Ili.
On the surface it would appear to be a relatively easy exercise in
arithmetic to simply take the projected population at the "design
year" and multiply that population by an average sewage generation ,
per capita per day to come up with a total capacity in millions of
gallons per day.
However, there are several factors which influence the City's decision
-4-
as to what treatment plant capacity is needed. Some of these factors
include:
1. The availability of State and Federal funds for construction..
2. The eligibility for grant monies for individual watershed areas
based on State accepted growth curves.
3. General Plan amendments (land use, densities, zoning).
4. The future growth rate in the seaver service area,
(which will be ;
affected by such things as inflation, availability of construction
loans and interest rates, availability of energy etc.)
5. The amount of reserve capacity for industrial uses.
6. The ability of the City to finance the costs of increased capacity.
Brown and Caldwell did a detailed analysis of existing growth
trends to predict population at the "design year" of 1986 for each
of the member agencies of EWPCF. Recent changes to the Federal
guidelines indicate that the Phase III expansion is to be designed
4
to handle the predicted sewage flow 10 years from the date of
"on line". (1977 + 10 = 1987 instead of 1986).
Exhibit "A" shows 5 different projection curves for the Carlsbad sewer
service area. (Note that this does not include the La Costa area).
The consultant concluded that the curve labelled "LOGISTIC PROJECTION"
' (PROJECTED TRENDS) (which refined the existing trends by incorporat-
ing factors for approved Master Plans, Tentative Map submittals, and
Subdivision Improvement Plans being processed) was the most reason-
able able curve. Note that this projects a population in ,1987 of approx-
imately 48,500. Using the Federal guideline of 100 gallons per capita
I per day yields a need for sewage treatment capacity of 4.85 MGD.
I
i The 100 gallons per capita per day guideline is higher than Carlsbad's
current flow, which is 1.7 MGD divided by 18,500 population (roughly)
-5-
a
or 91.9 GPCPD. So by using the 100 GPCPD projection, there is some
reserve capacity for commercial and industrial uses. Predicting
industrial waste flow is an "iffy" thing. Warehouses and office
parks do not generate much sewage in themselves, but other types of
commercial and industrial users generate from 6,000 to over 100,000
gallons per acre per day. . These are extreme ranges but the City of
Los Angeles average of 15,500 gallons per acre appears to be a real-
istic number.
To give an idea of the impact of commercial -industrial -users, the
recently approved 330 acre Cabot, Cabot and Forbes Industrial Park
at 15,500 gallons per day per acre would place a demand at the treat-
ment plant of over 5 I1GD or the equivalent sewage flow of a City of
50,000 population! Fortunately, the trend of high industrial sewage
flow is starting to reverse itsel-f, due primarily to the cost of
water, and more stringent requirements for industry to Treat the
sewage prior to discharging into public systems (this has lead to
more extensive recycling of "used water").
If a minimum of 0.58 MGD would be reserved for industrial and commer-
cial uses and added to the 4.85 MGD based on population demand, then
5.43 MGD would be needed by the City of Carlsbad for Phase III. This
would be an increase of 2.0 MGD above the City's capacity of Phase II -A.
FINANCING PHASE III CONSTRUCTION
In order to analyze the financing aspects of Phase Ill, several
assumptions are offered:
1. The City anticipates a need for an additional 2.0 MGD capacity.
2. The passage of a bond issue to finance Phase Ill is unlikely
since those voting would already have sewage capacity and would
not be interested in helping to finance a plant expansion that
would benefit others only. (This assumption would not be entirely
M
n
valid if the sewage treatment process were upgraded from primary
to secondary treatment. In that case a bond issue to upgrade the
existing plant might succeed,but not to enlarge it).
3. The State Water Quality Control Board will change its present
standards (which now require any plant expansion to include up
grading the entire facility to secondary treatment) by allowing
primary treatment.
4. Construction costs will not go down in the next 4-5 years but in
F ;
fact will go up as shown by the ENR Construction Cost Index shown
,in Exhibit "B".
5. The modificatio:i5 and enlargement of the Buena Vista and Agua
Hedionda pumping stations (Stage 1) will cost the City of Carlsbad
approximately $200,000 and is the only other significant capital
improvements expenditure prior to 1978.
6. It is unlikely that significant Federal and State monies will be '
made available for Phase III and it is in Carlsbad's best interests
to plan now to fund the majority of the construction costs from ;
local dollars.
7. The City's share of Phase III construction costs must be on deposit
prior to July, 1976, and prior to the award of the construction
contract.
8. The sewer connection charge (sometimes referred to as a capacity
1
replacement fee) is the most appropriate way to finance future
plant expansions.
' In the Phase III preliminary studies, Brown and Caldwell investigated
f the possibility of increasing the treatment plant capacity from 13.75
I MGD to 20.0 MGD, an increase of 6.25 MGD. The total cost for the
i -
i project was estimated at $2,740,000, (primary treatment only). The
-7-
-1
study indicated that $207,000 could be grant eligible from Federal
and State sources. $2,536,000 would be required from local funding.
If the City of Carlsbad would get 2.0 MGD out of the 6.25 MGD of
increased capacity, the prorated cost to the City would be $812,000.
These costs are based on construction costs prevalent in October,
1973, (ENR cost index - 2,100). An analysis of sewer connections
indicates that it is reasonable to expect additional connections
from January 1974 to July 1976 to number 3,000 (100 connections per
month) (1973 average = 89 connections per month).
Exhibit "C" shows in chart form, various options that are available
to the City in selecting a sewer connection iae and an estimate of
funds that would be available for Phase Ill. Included in these
options are consideration of:
a) a "Grandfather" clause which would allow an estimated 700-800
y existing occupied dwelling units the ability to connect to the
sewer system within 5 years of the effective date of the proposed
+ ordinance for the existing $50.00 sewer connection charge. 200
t of these connections are expected to be made by July, 1976.
b) revenue generating capability of various proposed fees.
c) the effect on revenue generation capability based on the effective
date of the proposed ordinance.
At the present sewer connection fee of $50 an estimated $150,000 will
be generated between January 1974 - July 1, 1976. This would finance
only a 0.37 MGD increase in capacity and would provide sewage treat-
ment for an equivalent population of 38,000.
In examining EXHIBIT "C", only by eliminating any "Grandfather"
clause for existing dwellings and by increasing the sewer connection
in
fee to $350 as soon as possible, will funds be sufficient to pay
For an additional 2.0 MGD capacity for the City.
This option would not be recommended by Engineering staff however.
In examining what is a reasonable sewer connection fee, we examined
the fees of other jurisdictions in the County and especially the
member agencies of EWPCF. A summary is contained in EXHIBIT "D".
Also considered was the value of the existing facilities prorated
per existing connection (each connection was worth $258.00).
i
} SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS t
RECOMMENDATIONS
z
l 1. The sewer connection fee should be increased to $250 in order
to a) bring connection fee more in line with the actual cost
of the benefit received;
b) generate funds for Phase III construction;
c) provide Carlsbad's sewer service area with sewage treat-
ment capacity for an equivalent of a i
f
population pproximately
48,000 upon completion of Phase III.
2. Existing dwelling units (including currently occupied mobile
home units) should be allowed to connect to the City sewer
system at the current sewer connection fee of $50, subject to
the payment of the fee and connection to the sewer system within
i
5 years of the effective date of the new fee schedule.
i
5 3. Building permits issued prior to the effective date of the new
fee schedule should be allowed to connect to the City sewer
system at the current sewer connection fee of $50.
M
.j
4. The new sewer fee should be implemented as soon as possible.
5. The City Attorney should prepare an ordinance to include items
1 - 4 for first reading at the second regular Council meeting
of February.
C�j
Tim Flanagan
City Engineer
1+ I
{
j
1
Y
r
:c
-10-
j
� s.'a�is�j� J)
' _ i � � .bib%eerior
G7CM1[S// /�i
��
A
ITI-2G ENGINEERING - SC,ENC ,, INC.
�xN�Qir �i
M E M 0 R A H D U M
January B, 1974
TO: City Manager
FRO14: Mayor Dunne
SUBJECT: Ordinance No. 7043 - Concerning an increase in the
sewer system connection fee
The following comments are offered for your considera-
tion:
A. There is no question that an increase in the sewer
connection fee is'necessary to provide for future growth.
Obviously, if no growth had occurred in the City the pre-
sent plant would be adequate and would,oniy require main-
tenance, minor repairs, and small improvements for some
time in the foreseeable future. You can therefore, pin-
point the necessity for ar, increased sewer connection fee
where it rightly belongs - on new homes and new subdivi-
sions throughout the Carlsbad area.
B. The proposed increase of $250.00 seems fair, consid-
ering fees charged in most other communities. However,
I would not object to dropping this down to $200.00. An
analysis of expected revenue from these fees is in order
to determine their adequacy. In the proposed fee struc-
ture I found nothing which forecasts the amount of rev-
enue we could expect to garner from the increased fees
over a given period of time.
C. The problem which faces us is to set• up a fair and
equitable se►•rer connection fee structure. The proposal
initially advanced was inequitable as it made no excep-
tion for homes which have been paying taxes for years
on the bond issue for constructing the bxisting Eacina
Plant and ocean outfall. The proposed revision setting
a $50.00 fee for such structures - provided they com-
plete the connection within one year - is somewhat bet-
ter but still not completely fair. Some of these homes
are not on sewer lines now and could not connect if they
wanted to. Others have large acreage with adequate sep-
tic tanks and leach -lines that do not need sewer connec-
tions now. A one year tirae limit would impose an unnec-
essary financial hardship on many such homeowners.
D. Repeating, many homeowners in the City have been
paying taxes on sewer bonds issued in the early 60's
I
N
to build the Encina Plant and outfall even though, for
various reasons, they were not connected to the sewer
system. In effect they have been subsidizing new homes
and new developments since that time, particularly
those in newly annexed areas - i.e. since the early
60's.
E. Using hind -sight, an increased sewer, connection fee
should have been imposed several years ago for all new
units constructed. If this had been done we would have
a sizable 'sum in the sewer account which might have per-
mitted us to meet our future capital commitments without
an excessive increase at this time.
F. As historical background, are made an exception in
Terramar to the requirement for a sewer connection fee.
There were a number of reasons why this was done by the
Council at that time, but all this is iv the minutes and
can be researched. Lanikai Court is another special
case that must be considered in the establishment of a
fee structure.
G. More data is necessary for a definitive analysis and
decision on the sewer connection fee structure - to alit:
(1) Now many homes, including mobile homes, are not con-
nected to a sewer line? (The study should not consider
unconnected new developments and new homes since they ob-
viously would not be built or planned unless they had
made provisions for sewer connections. (2) Of these
homes, how many have sewer lines available to Oich they
could connect. (3) Now much revenue do are expect to
produce by the proposed $250.00 fee and within what time
span? Will this be adequate? (4) What revenue loss
would.occur if the older homes were charged only the
$50.00 fee?
N. In my opinion, the most equitable Gray is to'impose
the $250.00 fee, or some modification thereof, on new
construction. Existing structures should be allow U_to
tie in at the old rate with no time limit set on com-
pletion of such connection.
DAVID M. DUNNE
Mayor
DMD: rc
cc: City Council
Acting public Works Director