Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-12 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 7 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Public Works AGENDA DATE: MAY 12,1997 CMR:236:97 SUBJECT:POLICY DIRECTION FOR THE SOLIDS FACILITY PLAN FOR THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT REQUEST This report requests that Council accept the Solids Facility Plan (Plan) and direct staff to make the necessary preparations to implement the Plan for the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that Council: Accept the Plan and its recommendation of a two-phase project to rehabilitate the existing incinerators immediately and toadd a dryer for peak loads if and when needed, potentially in ten years’ time. Direct staff to proceed with the financial planning to implement the first phase of the recommended project of the Plan. Fundiiag for the second phase will be deferred until needed. 4~ Direct staff to prepare the amendment to the Partners’ agreement to formally obtain Parmers’ approval of the project, and their agreement to pay their proportionate share of the project costs. Direct staff to report back to Council for approval of the signed amendment, the f’mancial package, and approval of the projects when the preparatiom are in place. _POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations in the Plan do not represent any change to current City policies. CMR:236:97 Page 1 of 4 EXECUTIVE SUIVIMARY The RWQCP provides advanced wastewater treatment for the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, the Town of Los Altos Hills, East Palo Alto, and Stanford University. The Solids Facility Plan is the RWQCP’s road map for the next twenty years to manage the sewage sludge in an economical and environmentally sensitive way. Sludge is the solid material removed from the incoming wastewater. The RWQCP removes and treats approximately 40 tons of sludge each day in its incinerators. There are many issues concerning the aging incinerators that prompted the RWQCP to initiate the Plan. These issues were highlighted in previous reports and informational reports. The latest updated informational booklet was di.stributed among the Partners in March this year. A copy of the booklet is attached to this staff report. The Plan was developed through two studies which have been under way since 1994. The first study evaluated the feasibility of the full realm of alternatives for handling the sludge, and narrowed down the number of feasible alternatives. The recommendation of the feasibility study formed the basis of the second study, the Plan. The Plan has been conducted according to a decision analysis process. The goal of the decision process is to build a consensus among the stakeholders and to include the values and priorities of all affected parties in evaluating the alternatives. Staffs of the Partner agencies worked with the RWQCP staff as technical advisors to the Plan. Informal meetings were conducted with focus groups to discuss issues of concern. The Plan focused on six solids treatment options. The options were evaluated from an overall "cradle-to-grave" perspective as to the environment, cost, energy, and resources. One treatment option was dropped from consideration because it will not meet the capacity requirement for the next 20 years. The costs of the remaining five options range from $11.4 million to $29.7 million in 1998 dollars. The recommended solids facility includes a two-phase project at a total cost of $11.4 million to rehabilitate the existing incinerators immediately and to add a dryer for peak loads when needed, probably in ten years time. A copy of the executive summary of the Plan is attached. The recommendation was made because of the following reasons: The pollutant emissions of the recommended facility will be either lower than or the same as the current emissions. The recommended facility meets all current and known potential future air quality requirements. CMR:236:97 Page 2 of 4 The recommended facility has the advantage of destroying PCBs and pesticides. other options utilizing digestion and heat drying do not. The The recommended project is the lowest in total cost, and the non-economic benefits gained by choosing the more expensive options do not seem to merit their additional cost. Staff met with Partner agencies to discuss the recommendation and the funding options. Partner staffs support the recommendation of the Plan and prefer to participate in a joint f’mancing plan that would pay for the project via the issuance of debt. FISCAL IMPACT The Plan recommended a two-phase project costing approximately $6.2 million in 1998 and approximately $6.7 in the year 2009. A cash flow analysis was prepared for the life of the project which assumed funding the project by revenue bonds. The estimated annual payment for the bonds for each Partner agency is tabulated in the March informational booklet. Due to the complexities and time involved in arranging the funding for a joint project, the f’mancial plan will need to proceed immediately. Amendment to the Partners’ agreement is also needed to arrange for the Partners to assume their proportionate shares of the project costs. Such an amendment will require a rate increase in the future. Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes" initiative, passed by voters in November 1996, appears to cover wastewater rate increases to residents and businesses in Palo Alto, to the extent wastewater charges fit within the ambiguous definition of "property related fees" in the proposition. Part of staff’s eventual work with bond counsel and rating agencies, when this project is ready for the sale of bonds, is to determine the extent to which the bonds’ ratings may be impacted by Proposition 218. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Plan recommends the rehabilitation of the existing incinerators that will result in emissions either at the same level or lower than the current emissions, hence would not trigger a new source permit. The cost of the rehabilitation is substantially lower than the cost of new replacement incinerators. The recommended project isa repair project of an existing facility that could be categorically exempt from CEQA either under Section 15301 or Section 15302. The project will be submitted to the Planning Department for determination. Planning Department’s determination on the project’s environmental impact will be submitted to Council when staff returns to Council for project approval. CMR.’236:97 Page 3 of 4 ATTACHMENTS March 1997 Informational Booklet Executive Summary of the Solids Facility Plan PREPARED BY: William Miks, Manager, Water Quality Comrol Plant DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: GLENN S. ROBERTS CMR:236:97 Page, 4 of 4