HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/04/28 Item 8 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 8
Meeting Date 4/28/87
ITEM TITLE: Public hearing on proposed increase in the Sewerage Facility
Participation Fee
a. RESOLUTION /,/00 Approving increase in the Sewerage
Facility Participation Fee and amending the Master Fee Schedule
b. ORDINANCE Amending Section 13.14.020A of the
Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to Sewerage Participation
Fee
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/City Engineer
REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ No X )
Council established the Sewerage Facility Participation Fee in April 1985.
The fee ($300 per new equivalent dwelling unit of flow) established at that
time was, and remains significantly lower than the fees of most other area
agencies. At the March 24, 1987, Council meeting, a proposal to increase the
fee to $600 was submitted. Council set a public hearing on the matter.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council place the ordinance on first reading amending
Section 13.14.020 of the City Code and resolution to modify the Master Fee
Schedule so as to increase the Sewerage Facility Participation Fee from $300
to $600 per new equivalent dwelling unit of flow.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Justification for an increase in the Sewerage Facility Participation Fee was
set forth in the March 24, 1987 agenda statement on that subject. A copy of
the statement is attached.
On March 26, 1987, staff received a letter from the Construction Industry
Federation (C.I .F.) which requests that the City take no action to increase
Sewerage Facility Participation Fees until costs, and their equitable
distribution, are determined. Attached to this A-113 is a copy of the letter
and staff's response to the letter.
Section 13.14.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code currently establishes the
base charge as $300 per equivalent dwelling unit. Current sewer service
charges and sewer connection fees are contained in the Master Fee Schedule.
Page 2, Item 8
Meeting Date 4/28/87
Interested parties have been notified of this public hearing including the
C.I.F.
Staff is available for response to concerns of the public as may be expressed
at the public hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: Increase income to the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund by
an estimated $375,000 per year (at 1986 growth rate) .
WPC 2724E
y th- City Council of
Chula Vista, C;:',i#ornia
Dat:ri
April 13, 1987
File: GY-038
To: Chula Vista City Council
Via: John Goss, City Manager 1
From: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works/City Enginee
Subject: Proposed Increase in Sewerage Facility Participation Fee -- Response
to Construction Industry Federation Concerns
The Construction Industry Federation (CIF) has submitted a letter (attached)
dated March 24, 1987, to Mayor Cox concerning the proposed increase in the
Sewerage Facility Participation that Fee. This memorandum is intended to respond
to the concerns expressed
CONCERN: Costs of conversion
fees secondary this time.treatment are still unknown and
so it is prematur e
RESPONSE: The 3-2�-8est mate Council
for either statement
construction that
of the"there
total
no recognized cost „
secondary system or the necessary engineering."
is, of necessity, a lag time between initiation of a fee and the
accumulation of a significant sum within the depository fund for that
fee. Chula Vista is now undergoing rapid growth and it i riatimportant that
the City not miss the current opportunity to collect app p
its growth sector. i In certainly y growth not premature.l ty,Delay recan lmrepresent of
an increased fee a
significant loss of income.
San Diego has budgeted some $10 million dollars toward the planning of
secondary facilities. That agency is proposing to increase both its sewer
service and facility npia rticipation
is based upon a rough estimate of opl f anni ngc� ent
costs.though it in t
The Construction Industry Federation letter points out that there is a
question as to whether the "costs for secondary treatment can legally be
passed on to contract agencies." Such argument ignores the practical and
ethical facets of the interagency relationships involved. There seems to
be little question that e contract
also enex istsshthed possibility p o r that to
shares of upgrading costs
totally new agreement will be required.
Chula Vista City Council -2- April 13, 1987
In a realistic sense, Chula Vista is faced with the same sewage treatment
problems and needs as San Diego. It is important that Chula Vista start
now to accumulate monies with which to face those problems and needs.
2. CONCERN: Chula Vista' s share of Metro capacity is less than the 8% cited
in the 3-24-87 agenda statement.
RESPONSE: Current total capacity reservation held by Chula Vista is 19.2
MGD. The design capacity of the Metro System per the Sewage Disposal
Agreement of 1960 is 233.92 MGD.
Therefore, Chula Vista's share of the current Metro capacity is
19.2/233.92 = 8.2%.
It should be recognized that the actual current Metro System capacity is
significantly less (probably in the range of 180 MGD) because the total
treatment facility contemplated under the Sewage Disposal Agreement has
not yet been completed. Some of the missing components are just now going
out to bid.
There is no way to predetermine the ultimate capacity of the upgraded
system. It may be greater than that of the present system. In view of
current federal regulations relative to the provision and financing
capacity for growth, it is probable that growth capacity will be
relatively more expensive to local taxpayers than the currently utilized
capacity. In light of this, it is even more difficult to guess the
ultimate capacity of the upgraded system and/or the percentage of that
total capacity which will be retained by Chula Vista.
3. CONCERN: The costs of planning for secondary treatment should not rest
solely with new development, but should be shared by the general ratepayer.
RESPONSE: There is no question that the general ratepayers must bear the
major part of the cost of an upgraded system. They have borne nearly all
of the capital cost of the current system including that portion intended
to accommodate growth. As the costs of the various phases of design and
construction become known, increases in sewer service charges are proposed
to be submitted for consideration by the City Council .
Chula Vista has always carried a generous reserve capacity in the Metro
System so as to permit and accommodate growth. That reserve has been and
remains the largest (percentagewise) of all of the satellite communities.
When Metro commenced operation in 1963, this agency was using only about
15% of its Metro capacity. We currently actually use about 55% of our
capacity. For many years the sole support of the City's Metro expense was
the sewer service charge. Thus, the general ratepayers paid for both
currently required and growth capacity. Part of that load should be
shifted to new residents in relationship to an upgraded system.
Chula Vista City Council -3- April 13, 1987
While it is not currently possible to determine what portion of future
costs will be attributable to new residents, it is a matter of record that
Chula Vista has to date maintained a total capacity reservation
appropriate to its ultimate needs. This attitude has consequently
necessitated carrying a relatively large reserve or growth capacity. It
would appear likely that the City will continue to maintain such a growth
capacity under an upgraded system. It is illogical and inequitable to
permit development dependent upon that growth capacity to occur without
assessment of an appropriate fee.
4. CONCERN: (from CIF letter) "At this time, estimates have not been made on
what portion of the costs are attributable to new residents and which are
attributable to existing residents. "
RESPONSE: Until such time that the Council commits to a specific total
capacity reservation in an upgraded Metro system, it will not be possible
to make a precise determination of the distribution of costs between new
and existing residents. However, in view of previous Council practice, it
appears probable that the capacity reserved will reflect total City needs
for an extended time period.
The current reserve is about 45% of total capacity reservation. Any
future proportionately large reserve capacity would obviously justify a
participation fee increase far in excess of that proposed.
JPL:WMH/nr
WPC 2726E