Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-05; City Council; 6326; Palomar wastewater reclamation facility-_ k CITY OF CAFUSBAD +I Tnitial: City Atty. 1 City Mgr. AGENDA BILL NO. ?2 6 Dept. Head DATE : August 5, 1980 DEPARTMENT : City Manaqer Subject: PALOMAR WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY Statement of the Matter A petition has been received from property owners in the Palomar Sewer Service area requesting an assessment district be formed to build the Palomar Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The Engineering Department has reviewed all available documentation related to the facility to: 1. Advise Council on the ultimate size and phasing of a reclamation facility to be located in the Palomar Sewer Service Area. 2. Analyze the positive and negative aspects of financing the reclamation facility through a (a) reimbursement agreement or (2) assessment district. This report identifies some problems which need clarification before a decision can be made on how large the plant should be and'how it can best be financed. In addition, the City Attorney has some concerns which need to be addressed. To resolve these issues it is proposed that the City contract for a feasibility study to provide the information needed to make a decision. The study will include the following scope of work: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A proposal to create an assessment district for plant construction generally consistent with the sewer plant built by the City of Rialto. An analysis of the recommended size and phasing of the plant. A recommended financing plan. A schedule for completion of the project. An analysis of the legal issues influencing the decision. Fiscal Impact The estimated cost of the study is $20,000 to be paid by Koll Company and others. Exhibits Letter from Koll Company dated 7-24-80 and 7-30-80 Letter agreement, Assessment District 80-1 City Engineer's report dated 7-25-80 Recommendation If desired, the Council may authorize the Mayor to sign agreement to conduct the feasibility study for Assessment District 8 0-1. AGENDA BILL NO. 6326 Page 2 Council Action: 8-5-80 Council approved the staff recommendation contained on page 1 of the Agenda Bill. KOLL CONTRACTOR July 24, 1980 Mr. Frank Aleshire City of Carlsbad 1200 El m Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: Agenda Item, August 5, 1980 City Council Meeting Frank, The Koll Company respectfully requests that the City Council include on its August 5, 1980 Agenda, an item concerning a petition by the majority of the land owners in the Palomar Airport Drainage Basin requesting an Assessment District as a means of payment for the pro- posed Palomar Airport Waste Water Treatment and Reclamation Plant. In addition to that petition, this group of land owners will have an advancement agreement for $20,000 as well as checks totaling $20,000. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, THE KOLL GOMPANY Southern Division BEF:ccc 7330 Engineer Road San Diego California 921 11 (714) 292-5550 KOLL CONTRACTOR July 30, 1980 Mr. Frank Aleshire City Manager City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008 RE: MacKenzie Brown, Don Owen Proposal Mr. Aleshire, Please be advised that The Koll Company has reviewed the July 28, 1980 letter proposing a $20,000 study for Assessment District 80-1. We are in concurrence with the scope of the study as proposed and herewith authorize the city to proceed. Sincerely, TH&,Mf Berna d EP President Southern Division 7330 Engineer Road San Diego California 921 11 (714) 292-5550 MEMORANDUM TO : CITY MANAGER FROM : CITY ENGINEER DATE : JULY 25, 1980 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PALOMAR AIRPORT WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FACILITY At your direction I have reviewed all available documentation related to the subject facility in an attempt to: 1. Advise Council on the ultimate size and phasing of a reclamation fa- cility to be located in the Palomar Airport Sewer Service Area. 2. Analyze the positive and negative aspects of financing the reclamation faci 1 i ty through a (a) reimbursement agreement or (2) assessment dis- trict. Sizing Lowry and Associates have submitted estimates of wastewater flow for the Palomar Sewer Service Area based on their knowledge of the various prop- erty owners' plans for their property. The flows projected for industrial areas are much less than our experience has been with the Palomar Airport Business Park. The Planning Department has also expressed concerns about Lowry and Associates' estimates for flows from Carlsbad Oaks, La Costa North, Carrillo Ranch and Bressie Ranch. Earlier this week, the City's growth management consultant presented data indicating a much lower ultimate population for Carlsbad. Their build-out figures for the Palomar Sewer Service Area approximated those presented by Lowry and Associates. If the Lowry and Associates/Sedway-Cooke data is to be believed, the ultimate size of a wastewater treatment facility to serve the Palomar Sewer Service Area should be between 4.5 and 5.0 MGD. Lowry and Associates' flow projections do not include any of the present Palomar Airport Business Park development, nor do they include the existing Beckman industrial area. Inclusion of these presently developed areas would add about 100 acres to the total sewer service area and existing flows of l5O,OOO gallons per day. from the 358 acres of the Palomar Airport Business Park yet to be developed at 290,000 gallons per day. Hughes development or any other major water user from coming into the busi- ness park. The same type of estimating holds true for the other industrially zoned areas with the exception of the Koll properties which appear to be estimated for as much as twice the sewage flows on the other properties. In Lowry and Associates projected sewage flows This estimate would definitely preclude another general, the projected flows from the indus Basin are very conservative. Phasing Based on the developer's projections of bui the Sedway-Cooke ana 1 ys i s) , i t appears that rially zoned areas of the Palomar d-out of their projects (and on the Palomar Sewer Service Area -2- may have a need for 0.3 to 0.5 MGD of treatment capacity by 1985. 1985 and 1995 the need would increase to about 4.0 MGD of capacity. the additional capacity from the Encina Phase Ill project and the Lake Calavera Hills project, there appears to be little need for the Palomar Facil ity prior to 1985. The City may want to consider an arrangement to build the "ultimate" 5.0 MGD plant at the Palomar site with construction scheduled for completion in 1985. Between With Reimbursement Agreement versus Assessment District Although the City has had considerable recent experience with a City/devel- oper reimbursement agreement for the construction of a satellite sewage treatment plant, staff is not experienced in the assessment district pro- cedure. be real ized: 1. 2. 3. A developer would not have to be assured or guaranteed any capacity in Under an assessment district the following major advantages could The developer and the City would not be burdened with a cumbersome ag reemen t . The assessments would spread the cost of the treatment facility to those who actually utilize it. the sewage treatment facilities. The major disadvantages of an assessment district appear to be: 1. The increased expense and time delays inherent in an assessment dis- 2. t r i ct process. The need for the City to guarantee payment on bonds which would be paid off utilizing connection fees. to ''loan" funds to the Palomar Assessment District to meet bond pay- ments if connections are not forthcoming. Market conditions could force the City The reimbursement concept seems to have major advantages in that it: 1. Allows the developer to build the facility rapidly and probably at con- 2. Does not present any financial risk to the City. siderably less expense. The biggest disadvantages of the reimbursement agreement include: 1. The necessity to guarantee the developer capacity. 2. The extreme financial burden on the developer who constructs the treat- ment facility. Recomenda t i on Authorize staff to obtain the services of an engineer and attorney experi- enced in assessment district and reimbursement agreements to develop the following report: 1. Analysis of reimbursement agreement versus assessment district to con- struct the Palomar Treatment Facility. -3- 2. Procedures which may be implemented to delay completion of the Palomar Facility until 1985 while protecting the rights of the City to require the facil ty and the developer's interest in pursuing the project. The treatment await complet ment study. plant sizing and phasing issue is still not clear and should on and approval by Council of the Sedway-Cooke growth manage- LE:VEB