Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-03-02 City CouncilCity of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE:MARCH 2, 1999 CMR: 147:99 SUBJECT:FINANCING THE NEXT PHASE OF STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS REPORT IN BRIEF A Storm Drainage Master Plan (Master Plan) was presented to Council in 1994. The Plan was under review by the Utilities Advisory Commission when California voters approved Proposition 218 in November 1996. Proposition 218 raised questions about the ability of the City to raise storm drainage fees without ratepayer approval, and Master Plan project planning was put on hold, pending clarification of Proposition 218. Public Works staff has since reprioritized Master Plan projects as a result of field crews’ observations of the storm drainage system performance over the past five years. Based on a review by Public_Works Engineering and Operations staff, a reprioritized 30-year Plan is now recommended at a lower cost than the original Plan submitted to Council in 1994. The current rate level of the storm drainage fee will not support any additional capital improvements. In order to fund new capital work, a fee increase will be needed. To comply with Proposition 218’s requirements on property related fees, of which storm drainage qualifies, any proposed fee increase must be brought to the ratepayers in a mail ballot procedure. Assuming the Council directs staff to proceed, the earliest that a ballot procedure could occur is in Spring 2000. Staff believes that the public’s awareness of the importance of storm drainage improvements has been heightened by the Winter 1998 storms, and that it is therefore appropriate to move forward in the near future with a proposed fee increase to accomplish additional capital improvements. Staff has proposed a plan that would result in an initial fee increase from the current $4.25 to $10 per household per month, effective in fiscal year 2000-2001. CMR:147:99 Page 1 of 13 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Finance Committee and the City Council: Provide feedback on the level of fee increase the Committee would like staff to pursue. Staff recommends that the Finance Committee consider a level of funding that would provide for: a)an augmented maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation program, estimated at $480,000 annually, beginning in 2000-01; b)funding for San Francisquito Creek liaison work, studies, and minor repairs over the next seven to ten years until a regional flood and erosion control solution can be found for the Creek. Annual funding is estimated at $285,000, beginning in 2000-01; c)an annual capital budget funded on a pay-as-you-go basis such that all critical and moderate Storm Drainage Master Plan priorities, totaling $48 million, would be completed in approximately 30 years. Critical priorities are those that would address chronic, moderate to severe street and intersection ponding problems. Moderate priorities are those that would address periodic, moderate street ponding problems. Direct staff to work towards the goal of seeking ratepayer approval for a Storm Drainage Rate increase in approximately one year. Staff’s recommendation would require ratepayer approval for a fee increase from the current storm drainage fee of $4.25 per household per month to approximately $10 in 2001, $11 in 2002, and no more than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) thereafter. Staff estimates this would result in a monthly fee of $12 in about 2007, and peaking at $13 in approximately 2012 through about 2030. (These numbers are approximate at this time, and would be refined between, now and any Council approved mail ballot procedure.) Indicate whether the Committee wishes to review a scope of services for a Request for Proposal for consulting services to: a) validate the existing storm drainage fee structure for compliance with Proposition 218, and b) work with staff to conduct a public education and awareness effort on the status of the Storm Drainage Fund and the proposed rate increase. BACKGROUND In 1994, staff presented to the Finance Committee a summary of the storm drain infrastructure improvements recommended in the Storm Drain Master Plan and Storm Drain Condition Assessment studies. The recommended work consisted of a $60 million, 30-year program to replace or repair damaged drainage system components and to increase capacity CMR:147:99 Page 2 of 13 by constructing new pipelines ($60 million in 1993 dollars has increased to roughly $71 million in current year dollars). Staff also presented a number of alternative funding strategies, including debt financing, pay-as-you-go, and a combination of the two methods. After consideration of staff’s recommendations, the Committee directed staff to: 1.Divide the proposed storm drain projects into three prioritized categories: A.system repair and ongoing programs, B.construction of new or improved drainage facilities in areas which are substandard compared with the rest of the City, and the remainder of the capacity upgrade projects. Proceed with Category A and B projects, using a combination of bonds and storm drainage fees. Hold the projects in Category C in the Finance Committee while staff conducts an extensive survey to determine the level of public interest in pursuing the storm drain augmentation program. During the Fall of 1995, a consultant was retained to assist staff in conducting a public outreach campaign to gauge the level of public interest in storm drain improvements. The consultant prepared an informational brochure outlining the proposed storm drain infrastructure improvements and their costs, which was delivered to residents as an insert to the Palo Alto Weekly in September 1995. Staff followed up by hosting a series of ten community meetings between October 12 and November 15, 1995. At each of the meetings, staff offered a detailed presentation of the history, rationale, and proposed funding strategy for the proposed storm drain improvement program, and provided ample opportunities for questions and comments from residents and business representatives. Although the neighborhood meetings produced lively discussion, there was no consensus on the merits of funding Category C projects. Residents of areas where ponding of storm water runoff is a chronic problem due to drainage infrastructure deficiencies expressed the strongest support for the drainage improvements. Concerns were expressed regarding the fairness of a citywide fee paying for area-specific improvements, the wisdom of incurring substantial long-term debt to finance the improvements, and the cost impacts on utility ratepayers. Residents also sought more information regarding the implications of not constructing the improvements and on City programs and policies discouraging the construction of additional impervious area that would further increase storm water runoff. Following the public outreach campaign, in December 1995, Council referred the storm drain infrastructure improvement program to the Utilities Advisory Commission for technical review. The Commission expressed concern regarding the benefits of the proposed drainage CMR:147:99 Page 3 of 13 improvements relative to the cost of the program. The Commission also asked staff to do a more thorough analysis of alternative project funding mechanisms. Staff’s review of the program with the Commission was interrupted by the passage of Proposition 218. In November 1996, Califomia voters passed Proposition 218, a comprehensive Constitutional amendment that covers property-related fees, assessments, and taxes. Analysis by Administrative Services Department staff and the City Attorney’s Office indicates that the charge levied by the City for the storm drainage program is classified as a property-related fee under the provisions of the Proposition. Consequently, the next time storm drainage fees are proposed to be raised, they are subject to approval by a majority of property owners or ratepayers. That approval may be in the form of a special mail ballot procedure. The timing of such a procedure is not required to coincide with a primary or general election. Clarifying legislation adopted by the Legislature after the passage of Proposition 218 allows the City to ask voters for approval for an increased fee structure plus authority to increase fees in the future by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) without subsequent voter approval. As was reported in the 1998-99 Budget Issues report (CMR: 199:98), current Storm Drainage Fund revenues will only support ongoing maintenance, storm water quality protection costs, and debt service on existing bonds. The last fee increase was adopted in 1994-1995 to pay for capital improvements, funded by bonds. A fee increase will be needed to pay for any additional capital improvements in the future. To date, the majority of the planned improvements that were funded by bonds have been completed, including storm drain pump station improvements, storm drain system replacement/rehabilitation, curb and gutter replacement, and Barron Park storm drain improvements. DISCUSSION Staff has had the opportunity to observe the performance of the City’s storm drainage system for a period of five years since the completion of the Storm Drain Master Plan. The wet winters of 1994-95, 1996-97, and 1997-98 provided particularly good opportunities to gauge the adequacy of the drainage system during severe storm conditions. Valuable information has been gathered during storm events by way of visual observations by Public Works Operations staff, through tracking and analysis of residents’ reports ofponding conditions, and through storm water pump station operational data collected by the City’s upgraded telemetry system, installed in 1996. The observations have led staff to several key conclusions: Observations during actual storm events confirm the Master Plan’s finding that there are components of the City’s storm drain system that lack adequate drainage capacity. Drainage problems exist both in areas with minimal drainage facilities and areas with facilities that are undersized. Many storms smaller than the 10-year storm event (which was recommended as the design standard) resulted in ponding on streets and intersections and minor structure flooding in several parts of the City. CMR: 147:99 Page 4 of 13 There is general correlation between the areas of the City that experience the most frequent drainage problems and the areas assigned the highest priority for drainage improvements in the Master Plan. Drainage backups occur most often in the neighborhoods in the eastern and northern portions of the City. These areas have relatively flat, low-lying terrain that drains slowly and that may be below the high water levels in the creeks during heavy storms. Streets that drain to the creeks by gravity, without the advantage of a pump station, are particularly vulnerable to ponding. There is a need to reexamine the appropriateness of some of the specific recommendations in the Master Plan. Recent experience suggests that some of the projects recommended in the Master Plan may not be the optimum solution to the drainage system deficiencies. In particular, during preparation of the Master Plan, staff purposely attempted to avoid the need for additional storm water pump stations. Pump stations are relatively expensive, may require land acquisition, result in ongoing maintenance costs, and are subject to mechanical or electrical breakdown. If costs and other factors are comparable, a system that drains by gravity is always preferable to a pumped system. Staff’s observations of drainage system performance has shown, however, that some of the worst drainage problems in the City occur on gravity systems that are unable to drain when the creeks reach high levels. In some of these cases, construction of a new pump station to pump existing pipelines may prove to be a superior alternative to the installation of larger pipelines. Refinement of the scope of drainage solutions for specific locations will require further engineering study. Staff recommends that the Master Plan be used as a guide for development of storm drain infrastructure improvements rather than a rigid set of mandates. Several of the areas of the City with the most severe drainage deficiencies are not addressed in the Master Plan. The Master Plan is a macroscopic overview of the City’s storm-drain system. The computer model that was developed to analyze the drainage system only contains storm drain trunk lines over 18" in diameter, which make up approximately 30 percent of the total drainage network. In addition to recommended modifications to address undersized trunk lines, the Master Plan’s cost estimates include an allowance of approximately 20 percent for local drainage improvements associated with the trunk lines. Staff has noted that many of the chronic drainage problems observed in the field occur in areas with inadequate or non-existent local drainage facilities. Many of these deficiencies are unrelated to storm drain trunk lines or affect geographic areas too small to be addressed by the Master Plan. These problem areas nevertheless merit attention. The widespread extent of drainage deficiencies was very evident in the February 1998 storms, when many areas throughout the City outside the San Francisquito Creek flood plain experienced flooding caused by storm drainage CMR:147:99 Page 5 of 13 backups. Staffhas concluded that the allowance factored into the Master Plan cost estimates is not sufficient to cover the costs to correct local drainage deficiencies throughout the City. Staff has developed a supplemental estimate to cover the cost of these improvements. Additional modifications to the City’s existing pump stations are required to optimize their performance. In 1995-96, staff implemented a capital improvement project to upgrade the City’s storm water pump stations. An important component of the project was the upgrading of the stations’ monitoring and remote telemetry system. This system monitors the performance of each of the pump stations and transmits the information to a central computer located at the Utility Control Center. The system has provided a wealth of information regarding pump station performance, including pump run times, wet well water levels, and pump cycling patterns. Staff has been able to take advantage of this information to identify further modifications that should be made to the pump stations to improve their performance. Staff has also identified improvements needed at each of the stations to improve worker safety, station reliability and efficiency. Staff has developed a supplemental estimate to cover the cost of recommended pump station upgrades. Proposed Financing Strategy Staff has assessed the ongoing maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation needs for the storm drain system based on experience over the past five years, and is recommending a three pronged financing approach for the Storm Drainage Fund. It consists of: 1)$480,000 annually in additional operations and maintenance efforts; 2)$285,000 annually for a seven to ten year time frame for creek liaison work, environmental studies, and local improvements until a regional solution to creek flooding has been addressed; and 3)capital funding sufficient to complete the critical and moderate priority capital improvements over the next 30 years. Staff has defined these priority capital projects (discussed below and shown in Attachment A) as those that will address street ponding problems which occur on a periodic to frequent basis, and which cause moderate to severe ponding problems. Each of these items is discussed in more detail below. Operations and Maintenance: When the Storm Drainage Fund was created by Council in 1989, maintenance staffing levels were set at a minimum level in order to reduce the amount of the initial user fee and to allow an opportunity for staff to evaluate actual needs through experience. The current CMR:147:99 Page 6 of 13 maintenance staffmg level is 5.0 FTE, including in-house maintenance, emergency response, and functional area administration. Staffing was shifted by about 2.0 FTE to Public Works’ General Fund in 1998-99 to reflect budget constraints, as bond funding is being depleted and future capital work will require approval of a rate increase. Until this year, staffing had been at a fixed level since the inception of the Fund, with the exception of the addition of an instrumentation electri(ian in F¥ 1997-98. Staff is recommending a $480,000 annual increase to the storm drainage budget to allow for the following staffing and program additions, which will need to be requested through the budget process, but which staff has used for financial planning purposes: o One additional field crew member ($60,000); O One administrative person to manage data for Storm Drainage billing and field maintenance activities ($60,000). Administration of the storm drainage fee requires staff time to update billing records to reflect changes in impervious area as properties are developed, make other miscellaneous billing adjustments, and workwith the Utilities Department Customer Service representatives to respond to customer billing inquiries. There is also a need to collect, input, and manage field data related to the maintenance of the storm drainage system using a computerized maintenance management system. This information enables staff to identify trends and to adjust maintenance schedules and locations based upon observed field conditions. These tasks are currently performed on a sporadic basis by existing staff and could be done far more effectively and efficiently by a dedicated staffperson; O $60,000 annually to be set aside for future condition assessments of the storm drainage system to be conducted approximately every ten years. A condition assessment includes inspection of the individual manholes, catch basins, and pipelines that make up the storm drainage system, evaluation of their current condition, and a prioritized list of recommended repairs or replacements. Pipeline inspection is performed with closed circuit television cameras that are pulled, through the pipes. The original storm drain condition assessment was performed in 1991-92, at a cost of $820,000. Future assessments could be performed at a lower cost by focusing on those system components that were found to be in marginal condition in the original assessment; and O $100,000 annually to be set aside in an equipment replacement reserve for replacing or upgrading storm water pump station equipment as needed. The City currently has six pump stations throughout the City, and two additional stations are recommended to be constructed as part of the storm drainage infrastructure improvements; CMR:147:99 Page 7 of 13 $200,000 for an annual curb and gutter repair program. This funding was reduced in recent years as the Storm Drainage Fund’s financial condition worsened, and this would merely restore the funding to its previous level. San Francisquito Creek Liaison Work and Local Improvements: San Francisquito Creek is by far the largest remaining flooding threat in Palo Alto. The February 2-3, 1998 flood displayed the magnitude of the damage potential from the overtopping of this creek. While the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Flood Control District have primary responsibility for flood control on San Francisquito Creek, it has become increasingly clear that implementation of a flood control project on the creek will require a cooperative effort between the various cities and water districts with jurisdiction over portions of the creek, the regulatory agencies, and the public. Since February, staff has been meeting with representatives from the cities of Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Portola Valley, and Woodside, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) representatives to discuss the possibility of forming a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) to oversee a flood control project for the creek. Although funding mechanisms have not yet been established, assessment district funding appears to be the most likely, with properties that would benefit from San Francisquito Creek improvements paying the assessments. Staff’s recommended rate proposal below provides for interim City funding for San Francisquito Creek work. City funding could potentially be used for engineering studies, environmental assessment, right-of-way acquisition, erosion control work, or local improvements related to the regional flood control project. Although the exact nature of the long-term San Francisquito Creek flood control improvements is unknown at this time, it will be a major project that will have multiple impacts on City infrastructure and the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. In the early stages of the coordination efforts on flood control issues, a staff member will be needed to act as the City’s liaison with the other agencies, represent the City’s interests, undertake various feasibility studies, .and conduct public outreach. As the planning and design process begins, that position’s responsibilities may include technical review, coordination of project review by various City departments, additional public outreach and education, and management of City construction projects related to any flood control efforts funded by the JPA. The liaison would also coordinate with the Santa Clara Valley Water District maintenance staff to facilitate periodic sediment and vegetation removal from the other Creeks in Palo Alto (Matadero, Adobe, and Barron). Staff estimates that the following is needed over the next ten years for efforts related to San Francisquito Creek until a more permanent and regional flood control solution is reached: o $85,000 armually for ten years, beginning in 2000-2001, for a dedicated creek liaison staff person; CMR:147:99 Page 8 of 13 o $200,000 annually for seven to ten years beginning in 2000-2001, for activities that may include engineering studies, environmental assessment, right or way acquisition, public outreach, erosion control work, or local improvements related to the regional flood control project. Capital Improvements: Given five years of experience since the publication of the Storm Drainage Master Plan, Public Works staff has been able to observe the impacts of localized flooding on the storm drainage system, and has revised the Storm Drain Master Plan recommendations. Staff’s recommendation (Attachment A) totals $48 million in current year dollars, and is now prioritized based upon what has been learned over the past several winter seasons. Staff recommends that the first two priorities (listed below) be funded over 30 years: Priority Group 1:CRITICAL PRIORITY, $24 million: a)Complete rehabilitation to existing infrastructure that has deteriorated, as identified in the 1993 Condition Assessment. Priority Group 2: b)Fund minimum set of infrastructure enhancements required to address chronic, moderate to severe street ponding problems. MODERATE PRIORITY, $24 million: Set of enhancements to infrastructure recommended to address periodic, moderate street ponding problems. Funding these priorities would further require some level of engineering augmentation (.5 to 1.0 additional staff) for a period of 10 to 15 years, in order to handle the level of capital work required to complete all critical and moderate priority capital improvements. The following two priorities are not recommended to be funded at this time: Priority Group 3:LOWER PRIORITY, $13 million: Priority Group 4: Enhancements to infrastructure that would be desirable if funding were available to address relatively minor or infrequent street ponding problems. PROJECTS NO LONGER RECOMMENDED, $11 million" Projects from the Storm Drain Master Plan not recommended at this time due to lack of observed drainage problems in project areas. CMR: 147:99 Page 9 of 13 Storm Drainage Fees Staffs recommended fee proposal contains the three elements described above: an augmented operations and maintenance program, a seven to ten year creek liaison and local improvements program, and a 30 year capital program. This proposal requires that fees be raised from the current level of $4.25 per household per month to approximately $10 initially in 2001, $11 in 2002, with increases of no more than CPI thereafter. (Actual fee increases would be less frequent after the initial ramping up). Rates of approximately $12 would be needed in about 2007, and $13 in about 2012 through 2031. This recommendation is shown in Attachment B. In order to fund only the first two elements of staff s recommended rate plan, i.e., augmented operations and maintenance and creek liaison work, an initial fee increase to $7.00 per month (from the current $4.25 per household per month) would be needed in 2000-01. Therefore, the capital component is not the most significant cause for the fee increase, but is only a part of the reason for the increase. Because of the passage of Proposition 218, staff is recommending a larger initial fee increase than would have been the case prior to its passage. This is because staff had originally planned on recommending periodic fee increases for the Storm Drain Fund, perhaps every three years or so. Now, an initial rate increase is needed at a level that can be sustained with only CPI increases over time, in order to avoid the need to return to the ratepayers for subsequent approval. Staff believes that the recommended option would result in the lowest fees over time consistent with ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation needs as well as addressing the most important storm drainage priorities over a 30 year time frame, with the most critical priorities addressed first. (Priority one projects would be completed in roughly 13 years under staff’s recommendation.) Given a 75-100 year useful life for storm drainage facilities, a 30-year capital program seems reasonable. It further seems reasonable to address the critical and moderate priority needs over 30 years, while lower priority items could be addressed as funding was available after that. Staff also recommends this option because it reaches a maximum of about $13.00 over the next 30 years. Note that this fee proposal is lessthan what was reported to Council in 1994, in which a monthly fee of about $16.00 was projected for year 30 of the financing plan. The change is primarily due to reducing the list of recommended capital projects, and the elimination of debt financing. Staff has researched storm drainage fees in other communities to serve as a basis of comparison for the proposed increases. In a nationwide survey of storm drainage fees conducted by a major consulting firm in 1998, monthly residential fees ranged from $0.24 to $11.31. The scope of services funded by these monthly storm drainage fees varied widely CMR:147:99 Page 10 of 13 from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Palo Alto’s fee would be considered a relatively broad- based fee, covering capital improvements, maintenance, and water quality protection costs. Staff believes that the level of community awareness of the need for storm drainage infrastructure improvements has heightened as a result of the wet winters over the past few years and especially the February 1998 flood. This change in awareness provides both an opportunity and a challenge for the City. Heightened support for drainage improvements improves the chances for obtaining public approval of an increase in the storm drainage fee through a mail ballot procedure. Staff would like to take advantage of the current public opinion climate by preparing for a mail ballot procedure in the next twelve months. On the other hand, staff must carefully manage the public’s expectations by accurately describing the scope of the proposed storm drain improvements. Storm drain improvements alone are not sufficient to prevent the type of flood disaster that occurred in February 1998. This type of event can only be averted in the future through a comprehensive flood control project for San Francisquito Creek, which is a regional project requiring regional funding beyond the scope of the proposed drainage improvements. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION Modified Staff Recommendation A slight variation on staff’s recommendation was also considered. The initial fee increase would be slightly less, because capital funding in the first 7-10 years would be lower. As creek liaison and local creek improvements phased out after 7-10 years, a more aggressive capital spending program could be implemented so that all priority capital improvements would still be completed over 30 years. The advantage of this modified recommendation is that it would require an initial fee increase to only $8.00 per month for the first two years, then to $9.00 per month for two additional years, before moving up to $10.00 per month. This alternative, shown in Attachment C, is not recommended because it would delay the time period for addressing capital work, and staff believes the public would want to see a more rapid system improvement plan. (It would take roughly four years longer to complete all priority one projects under this option vs. the recommended option.) Finally, this option would rise to a higher fee at its peak over 30 years, $15 per month (vs. $13 per month under the recommended option). Accelerated Capital Plan Staff defined this option as the same as the recommended option above, but with sufficient capital funding to complete priorities 1 and 2 projects over 20 years instead of 30 years. For this more accelerated program, fees would have to be raised to $12.50 initially in 2001. This option would require more frequent, subsequent increases than in staff’s recommendation, although still no more than CPI. This would result in a maximum fee of $15 in about 2021. Because this scenario, shown in Attachment D, results in earlier and more accelerated fee increases, it is not recommended. CMR:147:99 ’Page 11 of 13 Gradual Capital Funding Staff defined this alternative as the funding needed to complete only priority 1 capital projects over 30 years. For this more modest program, fees would have to be raised to $9.00 initially in 2001, then to $10.00 in about 2011, and to $11.00 in about 2029. This alternative is shown in Attachment E, and is not recommended because it would not address projects of moderate priority, i.e., those areas with periodic, moderate ponding problems. RESOURCE IMPACT Not moving forward with a rate increase would require that the Storm Drainage Fund eliminate all future capital projects, and fall further behind in the maintenance of the existing storm drainage system. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Approval of staff’s recommendations is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Policy N- 24 states that the City should "improve storm drainage performance by constructing new system improvements where necessary and replacing undersized or otherwise inadequate lines with larger lines or parallel lines." Program N-36 further states that the City should "complete improvements to the storm drainage system consistent with the priorities outlined in the City’s 1993 Storm Drainage Master Plan, provided that an appropriate funding mechanism is identified and approved by the City Council." TIMELINE After Council direction is received, staffwill begin to prepare a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) for consulting assistance to evaluate the storm drainage fee methodology for compliance with Proposition 218. The consultant(s) will also be asked to assist staff in developing a public outreach and education program on the proposed fee increase, which would be needed prior to any mail ballot procedure. Finance Committee feedback on whether they wish to participate in reviewing the draft RFP is requested at this time. However, due to the upcoming budget hearings, review of the RFP by the Committee could delay moving forward by 2-3 months. Staff estimates that it will take about 12 months to select a consultant, have the rate methodology reviewed, perform public outreach and education, and hold a mail ballot procedure. The earliest that a ballot procedure could occur, therefore, is March 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of financial options does not require California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. Individual projects will be subject to environmental review as they are further developed. CMR:147:99 Page 12 of 13 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E Attachment F Attachment G Reprioritized Capital Projects Recommended Rate Plan Modified Staff Recommendation Accelerated Rate Plan More Modest Rate Plan All Rate Plans Presented Together Detailed Rate Forecast on Recommended Rate Plan PREPARED BY:Jim Steele, Manager, Investments and Debt Joe Teresi, Senior Engineer DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc:Utilities Advisory Commission CAd m~i ni~AtiTvcS’f)~.S~rvicCt~r GLENN S. ROBERTS Director of Public Works ity Manager CMR:147:99 Page 13 of 13 ATTACHMENT A PRIORITIZED LIST OF STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PRIORITY GROUP 1 (CRITICAL PRIORITY): a) b) Remaining rehabilitation of existing infrastructure that has deteriorated, as identified in the 1993 Condition Assessment.. Minimum set of infrastructure enhancements required to address chronic, moderate to severe street ponding problems. Project Name Pump station evaluation and upgrades Relocate & pump 96" outfall into San Francisquito Creek Newell Road pipeline, outfall, and pump station (System CC) Harker Street pipeline (System CC) Lincoln Avenue pipeline (System BB) Parallel/Replacement pipelines (System BB) Extend Gailen Ave./Bibbits Dr. outfall to Adobe Pump station Improve drainage along southbound Alma Street Connect Clara Drive drains to Matadero Pump Station Balance of previously identified rehabilitation projects from 1993 condition assessment Location Cost (20005M) Citywide $3.57 North Palo Alto $3.71" Green Gables $3.62 Community Ctr.$2.41 Professorville $2.25 Professorville $1.78 Charleston Terr.$1.05" Alma Street $1.21" De Anza $0.55* Citywide $4.16 SUBTOTAL =$24.31 *New priorities identified from observations by field crew over last 5 years PRIORITY GROUP 2 (MODERATE PRIORITY): Set of enhancements to infrastructure recommended to address periodic, moderate street ponding problems. Project Name Location Cost (2000 $M) Southgate neighborhood drainage Chaucer Street pipeline (System AB) Parallel pipes (System ZZ) Increase capacity @ EmbarcaderoiE. Bayshore Kellogg Avenue pipeline (System BB) Pitman Avenue pipeline (System CC) Parallel pipes (System NN) Parallel/Replacement pipelines (System GG) (Loma Verde/Sterling Canal/Seale-Wooster Canal) Install pipelines to connect siphons Parallel pipes (System MM) Middlefield Road pipeline (System MM) Replacement pipelines (System CC) Southgate $1.78’ Crescent Park $0.18 Baylands $0.65 Baylands $0.48* Community Ctr.$1.70 Crescent Park $3.71 Ortega $0.60 Midtown/South PA $7.13 Various areas $3.33* Charleston Ten’.$2.75 Charleston Ten’.$0.64 Green Gables $0.69 SUBTOTAL =$23.64 (Note:staff’s recommended rate plan accommodates completing Priorities 1 and 2 over 30 Years) PRIORITY GROUP 3 (LOWER PRIORITY): Set of enhancements to infrastructure that would be desirable if fimding were available to address relatively minor or infrequent street ponding problems. Project Name Location Cost (2000 $M) Parallel pipelines (System DD) West of Foothill Expressway Parallel pipelines (System OO) Waverley Street outfall (System GG) Dana Avenue pipeline (Systems BB/CC) Parallel/Replacement pipelines (System WW) California Avenue pipeline (System J J) Parallel pipelines (System EE) Seale Addition $2.38 Foothills $1.19" Industrial/Comm.$0.60 Old South PA $1.42 Green Gables $1.58 Arastradero Rd.$3.01 College Terrace $1.13 ’ Walnut Grove $1.43 SUBTOTAL =$12.74 PRIORITY GROUP 4 (PROJECTS NOT RECOMMENDED): Set of projects from the Storm Drain Master Plan not recommended at this time due to lack of observed drainage problems in project areas. Project Name Location Cost (2000 SM) Plug DD diversion Louis Road outfall (System GG) Middlefield Road outfall (System GG) Parallel pipelines (System QQ) Parallel/Replacement pipelines (System XX) Parallel pipelines (System ZB) Laguna Avenue pipeline E1 Centro pipeline Parallel pipelines (System KK) Parallel pipelines (System ZA) Replacement pipelines (System AA) Replacement pipelines (System UU) Replacement pipelines (System TT) Parallel pipelines (System J J) S. Green Gables $0.01 Midtown $0.54 Midtown $0.64 Fairmeadow $1.37 Barron Park $0.89 W. Charleston $1.89 Barron Park ’$0.42 Barron Park $0.21 Stanford Res. Park $0.58 Hillview/Arastra.$0.02 Boyce Addition $1.13 Barron Park $0.16 Barron Park $1.55 Evergreen Park $1.96 SUBTOTAL =$11.37 ATTACHMENT B -0 -0 C ~D 0 ATTACHMENT C O 0~ O >0 0 LO ~" ~ 0 00 $$ u! sele~ e6eu!eJ(] mJo!s ATTACHMENT D (D >0 ATTACHMENT E ATTACHMENT F 0 $$ u! se;eN e6eu!e~G LU~O;$ ATTACHMENT G o L 0 ! ~=~ L 0 L 0o 0