CITY COUNCIL A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2023
7:00 P.M. Regular Session
33 Church Street, Sutter Creek CA 95685
The Agenda can be found on the City’s Website: www.cityofsuttercreek.org
THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM AND IN PERSON.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9568520224
or
Dial by phone:
301-715-8592
Meeting ID: 956 852 0224
Public comment will be accepted by email at [email protected]. All emails must be received prior to the start of the meeting.
Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.
1. CLOSED SESSION-None
7:00 P.M. 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM FOR REGULAR
MEETING
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. PUBLIC FORUM
At this time, the public is permitted to address the City Council on items not appearing on the agenda. Comments may not exceed 5 minutes. In accordance with State Law, however, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The City Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting on the matter. The exceptions under which the City Council may discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code §54954.2. Public comment on any item listed below shall be limited to five minutes, unless additional time is permitted by the Mayor/Council.
6. PRESENTATIONS
7. *
*
*
*
*
*
*
INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE
A. Monthly Police Report-distributed at the meeting.
B. Monthly Public Works Report
C. Monthly Building Report
D. Treasurer’s Reports
E. Monthly Administrative Services Report
F. Monthly Finance Department Report
G. Monthly Engineer’s Report
H. Monthly Planning Report
8. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
This section is to provide Council members an opportunity to present updates on their activities and to request items be placed on future agendas.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.
* A. City Council Minutes of October 17, 2022
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented. *
*
*
*
*
B. Warrants
Recommendation: By motion approve warrants as presented.
C. Resolution 22-23-* Authorizing remote teleconference meetings of the legislative bodies of the City of Sutter Creek.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 22-23-* as presented.
D. Mayor’s 2023 Committee Appointments
E. Resolution 22-23-* accepting the work on the “37 Badger Street Storm Drain Repair Project” and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Notice of Completion and cause it to be filed with the Amador County Recorder.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 22-23-* as presented.
F. Regional Transportation Impact Fee Report
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 22-23-* Approving the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Amador County Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Annual Report.
10. *
ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Introduce and Waive First Reading of Ordinance No. _____Amending Sections 15.04.10 and 15.04.030 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code adopting and amending the 2022 California Building Standards Code and other Uniform Codes.
11. *
*
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
A. Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee to pursue an Interim City Manager appointment due to the resignation of City Manager Amy Gedney.
Recommendation: Appoint Ad Hoc Committee to pursue an Interim City Manager.
B. Update regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant Plan of Study.
Recommendation: For information and staff direction.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This section provides an opportunity for Council members to request items to be added to the agenda in the future with a majority Council vote.
13. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
This section provides an opportunity for the City Attorney to report on any activities or upcoming legislation of importance to the City. No action is expected to be taken by the Council
14. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
This section is an opportunity to provide Council members with a brief status update on staff activities. No action is expected to be taken by the Council.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting is MONDAY, FEBRUARY 6 TH at 7:00 P.M
STAFF REPORT
TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: GEORGE ALLEN PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN
SUBJECT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2022 Objective: The objective of this Staff Report is to provide a monthly status update regarding activities within the Public Works Department.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Status:
The WWTP did meet all the effluent quality discharge requirements for the month of November.
Table 1. Monthly Status of required reporting constituents.
Constituent Monthly Results Monthly Limits
Monthly Influent Flow 9.293 MG. 0.300 mgd daily avg .48mgd1 Effluent BOD, mg/L 5 mg/L 30 mg/l
Effluent Settleable Matter,
mL/L
< 0.1 ml/L 0.5 ml/l
Effluent TSS, mg/L 11 mg/L 30 mg/l
Total Coliform, MPN < 1.8 mpn 23 mpn
Sludge Wasted 16,470 gallons
Rain 3.22 in. 3.84 in. YTD –26.42” Last YTD
1 The .48 mgd is daily dry weather flow (May through October).
Plant Compliance Issues:
• The October 2022 report was electronically submitted to Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Operational Strategy Modifications:
• The rag bin was hauled on November 17, 2022.
• A regular sludge wasting schedule was kept with a total of 16k gallons dewatered.
Collection System Status:
SSMP Activity
Calls for service
• 11/1/2022, 29 Oro Monte Way, City Main line issue.
• 11/29/2022, 194 Lorinda Dr. private lateral issue.
Sewer System Cleaning and Maintenance.
• For November, there was 3,626 feet of sewer line cleaned. Total amount cleaned for 2022 is 28,473 feet, exceeding the 25,00 feet required in the SSMP.
Service Requests
Responded to fifteen Service Requests in November.
• Three were for a facility issues;
• Three were for street issues;
• One was for a streetlight issues;
• Three were for storm drain issues;
• Two were for code enforcement;
• Two were for sewer issues;
• One for a Cemetery issue.
Effluent Disposal
• Ongoing irrigation
• at Preston Reservoir.
• Working with Thatcher Chemical on adding Calcium Nitrate to Preston reservoir effluent to curtail the Hydrogen Sulfide smell at Ione Tertiary plant. • Working with Aquality on the Preston Reservoir issues. • Shut down irrigation Hoskins irrigation.
• Shut down irrigation at Bowers Irrigation site.
• Sending weekly updates to the Regional Board on reservoir levels and volumes. • Daily flow checks and level readings.
Streets and City Right of Way.
• Repaired street lights on Golden Hills Dr.
• Ongoing repainting red zones in the downtown area.
• Repainting the yellow crosswalks in the school areas. • Ongoing roadside trash cleanup.
• Ongoing patching of numerous potholes.
Parks and Buildings
• Put up the Main Street Christmas swags.
• Installing a grate covered drain in front of 21 Badger Rd. • Campbell Construction continued working on Bryson park. • Ongoing set up and take down for the meeting in the Community Center. • Ongoing cleanup of Community Center, Auditorium and Grammar School for the rentals.
November 2022 Building Permits Issued
Submitted Prepared
Permit
#
Issue
Date
Final ( F )
or
Expire
Date APN Address Owner Contractor Description
New
Const
Y/N
SQ
FT
Commercial
Valuation
Residential
Valuation
Commerical
Permit Fee
Residential
Permit Fee
(WGA)
Plan Check
SCFEF
(Strong
Motion)
SB 1473
Fee
Grand
Total
10/18/2022 10/31/2022 2022-NOV-01 11/9/22 5/9/23 040-210-046 284 California Dr. Reher, Ron & Therese Prime Home Solutions Solar 19,985.00 275.02 177.28 2.60 1.00 $ 455.90 10/11/2022 11/3/2022 2022-NOV-02 11/9/22 5/9/23 040-200-042 229 Sutter Crest West Bellotti, Joe & Deborah Petkus Brothers Other 27,900.00 616.10 398.97 3.63 2.00 $ 1,020.70 Patio Cover 11/7/2022 11/8/2022 2022-NOV-03 11/9/22 F 018-320-035 100 David Dr. Marler, David JM Roofing Re-roof 10,000.00 220.00 1.30 1.00 $ 222.30 8/18/2022 11/1/2022 2022-NOV-04 11/9/22 5/9/23 018-121-032 153 Badger Rd. Reid, Laurence Smallie Development New ADU 471 15,000.00 346.37 313.13 1.95 1.00 $ 662.45 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-NOV-05 11/9/22 5/9/23 018-253-019 200 Judy Dr. Trevaskis, John & Tami Determined by Owner Remodel 5,000.00 298.00 0.65 1.00 $ 299.65 11/8/2022 11/8/2022 2022-NOV-06 11/10/22 5/10/23 018-320-055-059 141-149 Patricia Ln. Trotter Mansor, Michelle All Sierra Roof Re-roof 18,000.00 396.00 2.34 1.00 $ 399.34 11/7/2022 11/9/2022 2022-NOV-07 11/10/22 5/10/23 018-155-001 53 Main St. Laughlin/Hotel Sutter Determined by Owner Other 10,800.00 237.60 154.44 1.40 1.00 $ 394.44 Pillars replacment 11/9/2022 11/9/2022 2022-NOV-08 11/14/22 F 018-266-006 185 Foothill Dr. Shubaly Family Trust Determined by Owner Other 3,950.00 110.00 0.50 1.00 $ 111.50 Gas Line 10/26/2022 10/26/2022 2022-NOV-09 11/15/22 5/15/23 018-035-007 269 Columbia Way Wells Fargo BNA Gilmore Home Services HVAC 13,900.00 305.80 1.81 1.00 $ 308.61 11/2/2022 11/14/2022 2022-NOV-10 11/16/22 5/16/23 040-210-055 310 California Dr. Trudell, Linda Sunrun Solar 20,720.00 272.72 187.50 2.69 1.00 $ 463.91 11/15/2022 11/16/2022 2022-NOV-11 11/22/22 5/22/23 040-210-039 262 California Dr. Travnikar, Jim Gilmore Home Services HVAC 13,100.00 290.50 1.70 1.00 $ 293.20 11/21/2021 11/22/2022 2022-NOV-12 11/22/22 5/22/23 044-020-076 1 Pinewoods Ln. Jackson Rancheria Development Corporation Watson Companies Inc. Re-roof 344,710.00 7,583.62 96.52 14.00 $ 7,694.14 11/7/2022 11/22/2022 2022-NOV-13 11/23/22 5/23/23 018-253-026 115 Barbara Ct. Govette, Terri North Valley LLC Re-roof 27,000.00 369.02 177.28 3.51 2.00 $ 551.81 11/23/2022 11/23/2022 2022-NOV-14 11/28/22 5/28/22 018-281-002 225 Patricia Ln. Juan Ysalgue Sierra Pacific Home & C Solar 39,345.00 369.02 177.28 5.11 2.00 $ 553.41 11/29/2022 11/29/2022 2022-NOV-15 11/29/22 5/29/22 018-342-010 360 Sutter Hill Road Dennis Griffin Klonowski Roofing Re-roof 64,500.00 1,419.00 8.39 7.00 $ 1,434.39 Totals 355,510.00 278,400.00 7,821.22 5,287.55 1,585.88 134.10 37.00 14,865.75 December 2022 Building Permits Issued
Submitted Prepared
Permit
#
Issue
Date
Final ( F )
or
Expire
Date APN Address Owner Contractor Description
New
Cons
t
Y/N
SQ
FT
Commercial
Valuation
Residential
Valuation
Commerical
Permit Fee
Residential
Permit Fee
(WGA)
Plan Check
SCFEF
(Strong
Motion)
SB 1473
Fee
Grand
Total
11/7/2022 11/22/2022 2022-DEC-01 12/1/22 F 018-320-035 100 David Dr. Marler, David Valley Solar Inc. Solar 34,800.00 275.02 177.28 4.52 2.00 $ 458.82 10/31/2022 11/8/2022 2022-DEC-02 12/1/22 6/1/23 018-061-020 190 Amador Rd. Rohrer, Jacob V3 Electric Solar 7,200.00 160.70 125.00 0.94 1.00 $ 287.64 11/2/2022 11/14/2022 2022-DEC-03 12/1/11 6/1/23 040-200-003 310 Gopher Flat Rd. Friedman Gramlich, KathleenV3 Electric Solar 14,400.00 275.02 177.28 1.87 1.00 $ 455.17 11/15/2022 11/23/2022 2022-DEC-04 12/5/22 6/5/23 018-320-008 110 Patricia Ln. Houck, Ron & Suzanne Halls Electric Inc. Generator 10,580.00 232.76 151.29 1.38 1.00 $ 386.43 11/30/2022 11/30/2022 2022-DEC-05 12/6/22 6/6/23 018-163-016 60 Broadway St. Williams, Johnnie GVL Roofing Re-roof 15,640.00 344.08 2.03 1.00 $ 347.11 12/6/2022 12/6/2022 2022-DEC-06 12/7/22 F 018-343-026 89 Mesa De Oro Cir. Meneely, Ken Determined by Owner Solar 24,000.00 272.72 177.28 3.12 1.00 $ 454.12 12/6/2022 12/6/2022 2022-DEC-07 12/13/22 6/13/23 018-331-019 320 Gold Strike Ct. Weingart, Kenny & AllisonGilmore Home Services HVAC 20,500.00 453.30 2.67 1.00 $ 456.97 11/28/2022 12/8/2022 2022-DEC-08 12/15/22 6/15/23 018-132-014 85 Broad St. Fine, Troy Tesla Solar 13,724.00 301.93 196.25 1.78 1.00 $ 500.96 12/7/2022 12/19/2022 2022-DEC-09 12/19/22 6/19/23 040-210-023 267 California Dr. Anderson, Ethan Determined by Owner Garage Y 780 37,708.00 539.23 907.98 4.90 2.00 $ 1,454.11 11/22/2022 11/23/2022 2022-DEC-10 12/21/22 6/21/23 018-210-001 6 Main St. Duff, Allison & Jared Determined by Owner Other 2,000.00 220.00 143.00 0.56 1.00 $ 364.56 Pergola 12/15/2022 12/27/2022 2022-DEC-11 12/27/22 6/27/23 018-281-002 225 Patricia Ln. Ysalgue, Juan Sierra Pacific Home & C Other 7,172.00 157.99 102.56 0.93 1.00 $ 262.48 Pool Heater Totals 2,000.00 185,724.00 220.00 3,012.75 2,157.92 24.70 13.00 5,428.37 City of Sutter Creek
City Treasurer's Report
Receipts & Disbursements Report
City's Checking Account
Receipts
Deposits $ 609,316
Reversal of Bank Charges -
Total $ 609,316
Disbursements
Accounts Payable $ 338,774
Payroll & Benefits 102,287
Bank Charges -
Total $ 441,061
Net Amount of Investment Transfers $ -
Recap of City Treasury
Investments on Hand November 30, 2022
Rate of
Return
Bank of Marin Checking $ 1,181,893 0.01%
Bank of Marin Money Market $ 11,571 0.07%
Bank of Marin Money Market #2 $ 2,034,409 0.35%
* California State Treasurer's LAIF $ 1,578,563 1.35%
Total $ 4,806,436
Total this month last year $ 4,123,626
* LAIF 1 $ 58,043
LAIF 2 $ 1,520,520
The investment information provided in this report reflects the City's ability to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. The investment portfolio is in compliance with the City's investment policy. Victoria Runquist 12/14/2022 November 2022
Market or
Withdrawal
Value
City of Sutter Creek
City Treasurer's Report
Receipts & Disbursements Report
City's Checking Account
Receipts
Deposits $ 697,679
Reversal of Bank Charges -
Total $ 697,679
Disbursements
Accounts Payable $ 147,837
Payroll & Benefits 157,368
Bank Charges -
Total $ 305,205
Net Amount of Investment Transfers $ -
Recap of City Treasury
Investments on Hand December 31, 2022
Rate of
Return
Bank of Marin Checking $ 1,607,050 0.01%
Bank of Marin Money Market $ 11,572 0.07%
Bank of Marin Money Market #2 $ 2,034,985 0.35%
* California State Treasurer's LAIF $ 1,578,563 1.35%
Total $ 5,232,170
Total this month last year $ 4,166,156
* LAIF 1 $ 58,043
LAIF 2 $ 1,520,520
The investment information provided in this report reflects the City's ability to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months. The investment portfolio is in compliance with the City's investment policy. Victoria Runquist 1/11/2023 December 2022
Market or
Withdrawal
Value
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer _________________________________________________________________________ TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: KAREN DARROW, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES NOVEMBER 2022 REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
The Administrative Services Department encompasses a variety of functions on behalf of the City including Human Resources, Risk Management, the Office of the City Clerk and Public Engagement and Marketing.
Included is an overview of the activity within the Administrative Services department for the month of November 2022.
DISCUSSION:
Risk Management
• Review and oversight of one active Workers Comp claim and two ongoing liability claims.
Human Resources
• Open enrollment.
City Clerk
• 3-Public Record Request Responses and 22-Citizen Inquiries responses. • Agenda preparation, minutes and follow up for:
1-City Council, 1-Planning Commission, 1-DRC and 1-ARSA, 1-Finance Committee and noticing for 3 public hearings.
• Issued 1-Design Clearance, 1- Home Occupation Permit and 1-Site Plan Permit • Update and review content for the City of Sutter Creek website.
Public Engagement and Marketing
• Crafted 18 social media marketing ads designed to reach specific target groups. • Coordinate city decoration efforts with Public Works department. • Create an online interactive map for the city-wide Holiday Light Tour and competition. • Create and promote Holiday Season Events through mailing, email and social media contacts.
• Create Holiday content for the visit website
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer _________________________________________________________________________ TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: KAREN DARROW, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DECEMBER 2022 REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
For information.
BACKGROUND:
The Administrative Services Department encompasses a variety of functions on behalf of the City including Human Resources, Risk Management, the Office of the City Clerk and Public Engagement and Marketing.
Included is an overview of the activity within the Administrative Services department for the month of December 2022.
DISCUSSION:
Risk Management
• Review and oversight of one active Workers Comp claim and two ongoing liability claims.
Human Resources
• Completion of open enrollment.
• Attend PACE JPA Quarterly Board Meeting
City Clerk
• 2-Public Record Request Responses and 27-Citizen Inquiries responses. • Agenda preparation, minutes and follow up for:
1-City Council, 1- PC/CC workshop, 2-DRC
• Issued 3-Design Clearance permits.
• Process the certification of Election.
• Update and review content for the City of Sutter Creek website.
Public Engagement and Marketing
• Crafted 11 social media marketing ads designed to reach specific target groups. • Promote Holiday Season Events Create and design winter and holiday marketing campaign.
• Ongoing preparations, coordination and set up of Holiday Décor and events. 2 • Monitor participation requests for the city-wide Holiday Light Tour throughout Create and review content for the Visit Sutter Creek website.
• Began planning for upcoming spring marketing effort.
• Attend Monthly SCBPA meeting
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ____________________________________________________________________________ TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: JODI STENECK, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: FINANCE DEPT. NOVEMBER 2022 REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational only.
BACKGROUND:
To provide information regarding the activities of the Finance Department for the month of November 2022.
DISCUSSION:
Accounts Receivable
• Fifteen (15) Building Permits were issued in November for a fee total of $14,866. • Facility rental revenue for the month of November 2022 was $5,885.00. • Currently we have; 182 Sewer service customers enrolled in e-billing and 296 Sewer service customers are enrolled in auto pay.
Accounts Payables
• 72 Warrant checks were issued in the amount of $338,774.32 Special Events applications approved
• Amador County Arts Council – Wine Fest, event date 11/12/22 ARSA
• Prepared monthly financial statements for ARSA meeting • 14 Invoices processed, 8 Warrant checks issued
• Prepared staff report and resolution for extension of loan with COSC Misc.
• Completed Final SC Capital Facilities Fees Annual Report. • Encroachment Permit issued to Alpha Technologies Services 18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ____________________________________________________________________________ TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: JODI STENECK, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: FINANCE DEPT. NOVEMBER 2022 REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational only.
BACKGROUND:
To provide information regarding the activities of the Finance Department for the month of December 2022.
DISCUSSION:
Accounts Receivable
• Eleven (11) Building Permits were issued in December for a fee total of $5,248. • Facility rental revenue for the month of December 2022 was $4,437. • TOT collected for November was $25,796.
• 177 Business License renewals were printed and mailed • Currently we have; 184 Sewer service customers enrolled in e-billing and 303 Sewer service customers are enrolled in auto pay.
Accounts Payables
• 57 Warrant checks were issued in the amount of $141,964.03 Special Events applications submitted
• Amador High ASB – Big Game Walk Student Rally
• St. Katherine Drexel Parish – Cancelled due to weather • SCBPA – Parade of Lights – Cancelled due to weather
ARSA
• 17 Invoices processed, 9 Warrant checks issued
1 TO: Amy Gedney, City Manager
FROM: Matt Ospital, PE City Engineer
SUBJECT: Project Status Update
DATE: January 17, 2023
Amy, the following is a status update of all projects WGA is currently working on:
1. Citywide CIP – Preliminary cost estimates and exhibits have been completed and presented to the City Council. The engineering team will update project worksheets and add any additional locations that are recommended by the City Council.
2. Gopher Flat Realignment – Currently working on a new alignment to remove one of the road curves and possible widening.
3. Bryson Park Upgrade – Construction was substantially completed on November 18th. Due to the colder weather, court striping cannot be completed until Spring as recommended by the paint manufacturer.
4. 37 Badger Storm Drain Project – Working with City to accept project.
5. Cramer Hills – Reviewing updated Final Map.
6. Building Inspections/Plan Check – Continuing building inspections on Tuesdays and Thursdays or as needed. Building plan check is being performed on a continual basis as plans are submitted.
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: ERIN VENTURA, CONTRACT PLANNER
SUBJECT: PLANNING UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
For information only.
BACKGROUND:
Below is a status update regarding projects within the Planning Department.
DISCUSSION:
Zoning Update/EIR/Development Standards
The City will conduct 4 more joint workshops starting in early March. This is a grant funded project to be spent by end of 2023. Staff is working on compiling a draft and will have an Admin Draft complete by the end of the month. The EIR will begin after the Development Standards and the Zoning Update are complete.
Housing Element Update
The comment period ended on 1/9/23. Staff is working on compiling comments and will be sending them over to the consultant. Once the consultant has comments from all jurisdictions they will update the Draft Housing Element and it is to HCD for a 90 day review.
Circulation Element
Draft completed by GHD, and reviewed by PC and CC, but has not adopted because CEQA has not been done. CEQA will be done with the Citywide EIR. If the CC would like to adopt the Circulation Element before completing the Citywide EIR that is possible but will cost additional money and will not be grant funded.
Applicant Projects
Broadmeadows and Panner Creek
Staff are still waiting on a joint EIR from the applicant. There are concerns that water may be an issue.
2 Gardella Deli next to church on 49 just south of Valley View No updates at this time. The applicant is working with CalTrans on reviewing access to the project. The applicant is also working on a Site Plan.
Sutter Creek Ranch (Gold Rush Ranch Specific Plan)
No updates
DANCO Valley View and Bowers
DANCO submitted a project update letter in Dec. 2022. They are still working with AWA on securing water.
Hertzig site plan 12201 Eureka Rd.
Staff is waiting on a response from the applicant
Weigand lot split Foothill Drive
The applicant has reviewed the responses from the referrals and would like to proceed with the project.
MACT 321 Old Hwy 49
Staff will be coordinating a site visit with the applicant in the next couple of weeks to go over access and the site plan.
Cramer Hills LLC- Tentative Map
The Planning Commission approved an extension for the Tentative Map. The applicant is working with the City Engineer on the Conditions of Approval for the map and anticipates it will be finaled early 2023.
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2023
THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED IN-PERSON AT 33 CHURCH STREET, THE PUBLIC WAS ALSO ABLE TO PARTICIPATE FROM HOME:
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/9568520224
or
Dial by phone:
301-715-8592
Meeting ID: 956 852 0224
6:30 P.M. 1. CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9
(Claim of Michelle Van Der Veen and iHeart Homes, Inc.) 7:00 P.M. 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM FOR REGULAR MEETING Council members Present:
Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
Vicky Runquist, City Treasurer
Absent: Peters
Staff Present:
Amy Gedney
Derek Cole
Karen Darrow
Jodi Steneck
Matt Ospital
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
4. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Cole reported:
On motion of Councilmember Sierk, and second by Councilmember Gunselman, the City Council voted to direct City Staff to issue a rejection of the government claim.
The vote was 4-0 in favor of the motion.
Ayes: Mayor Gunselman, Vice Mayor Sierk, and Council member Swift and Feist.
Noes: none.
Absent: Council member Peters.
5. PUBLIC FORUM
Lottie Tone of Sutter Creek asked why the tree in the median on Main Street was not lit for the holidays and asked why there are not printed copies of the agenda at the meetings and printed copies posted where they used to be.
City Manager Gedney noted that Public Works did not light that tree this year.
Frank Cunha of Sutter Creek asked if audio devices for the hearing impaired were available and why there has not been a staff report in the last four years in response to the petition that was submitted requesting a walking path.
Al Bierce of Sutter Creek as ked who is responsible for the bulletin board at Sutter Hill.
City Manager Gedney noted that it is the Business Association.
6. ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR FOR 2023
Recommendation:
1. Elect a Mayor for 2023.
M/S Council member Swift/Sierk to nominate Council member Gunselman as Mayor for 2023.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
2. Elect a Vice Mayor for 2023.
M/S Council member Gunselman/ Feist to nominate Council member Sierk as Vice Mayor for 2023.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
7. INFORMATION/CORRESPONDENCE
A. Letter to Amador County Unified School District from ACTC regarding school consolidation plan.
Recommendation: For information only.
8. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS
Council member Sierk asked when the council committee assignments would be discussed.
City Manager Gedney noted that they would be on the agenda for the next meeting.
Mayor Gunselman noted that the Sutter Creek Community Benefit Foundation had the Sutter Creek “book” sign repainted and put back up on Main Street.
9. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.
A. City Council Minutes of December 5, 2022
Recommendation: By motion approve minutes as presented.
M/S Council member Swift/Sierk to approve the City Council Minutes of December 5, 2022, as amended.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
B. Warrants
Recommendation: By motion approve warrants as presented.
M/S Council member Swift/Feist to approve the warrants, as presented.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
C. Planning Commission Appointment
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 22-23-* appointing Andrea Macon to the Planning Commission.
M/S Council member Swift/Feist to Adopt Resolution 22-23-25 appointing Andrea Macon to the Planning Commission.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
10. ORDINANCES & PUBLIC HEARINGS- None.
11. ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA
A. PARS 115 Trust-Pension Rate Stabilization Program.
Recommendation: Adopt Resolution 22-23-* Adopting the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment Benefits Trust Program.
Jodi Steneck Accounting Supervisor presented with Mitch Barker from PARS available to answer questions.
Mr. Barker noted that this program is a useful tool that can be utilized when the Council is ready. He clarified that there is not a set up fee and that the .25% fee is only after assets are deposited and will come out of plan assets.
M/S Council member Swift/Sierk to Adopt Resolution 22-23-26 Adopting the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Post-Employment Benefits Trust Program.
AYES: Feist, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Peters
MOTION CARRIED
B. Review of capital improvement projects and cost estimates for inclusion in a future Capital Improvement Program.
Recommendation: For information and staff direction.
City Engineer Matt Ospital distributed copies of the map.
City Manager Gedney noted that there is a sinkhole on Gold Strike that has become the top priority.
Council member Sierk noted that she would like to have the needs of the Circulation Element included to see how they match up.
City Engineer Ospital confirmed that sidewalks were included in the cost estimates.
Lottie Tone of Sutter Creek asked how the general public can participate and make recommendations.
Council member Swift suggested adding a notice in the sewer bills.
Andrea Macon of Sutter Creek asked if there would be an opportunity for homeowners to work in partnership to do their own repairs at the same time.
Mike Kirkley of Sutter Creek asked what the current road funding sources and commented that a previous lack of fiscal responsibility has created the inability to maintain roads.
City Manager Gedney noted that there is very little funding available from SB1, gas tax and some RSTP funds.
Frank Cunha of Sutter Creek asked if a Safe Route to Schools grant could be applied for Gopher Flat and suggested asking the Rancheria or forming a CFD could be an option.
City Engineer Ospital noted that he would investigate whether it would be affordable to apply to for a Safe Route to Schools grant.
City Manager Gedney recommended that Council suggestions be submitted to staff and they can be brought back for further discussion.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council member Sierk requested:
1- Set meeting schedule six months at a time to schedule agenda items. 2- Discuss use of Council stipends.
3- Status of Circulation Element
4- Status of Gopher Flat
City Manager Gedney noted that there is nothing to report on the Circulation Element of Gopher Flat.
Council member Feist requested:
1- Heritage Oak preservation discussion
Mayor Gunselman requested:
1- Gopher Flat update put on the agenda for discussion.
13. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
A. Legislation Update for 2023
Recommendation: For information only.
City Attorney Cole presented the legislative updates.
4. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Gedney commended the Public Works and Police Departments for their storm response and noted and as a result the city fared well. A sewer spill that has already been reported and the sink hole at Gold Strike were some of the issues.
City Manager Gedney reported that the ARSA lawsuit is pending and that there are additional reporting requirements as a result of the lawsuit. She noted that the Board of Supervisors is doing an emergency proclamation because of the storm and that staff is waiting to see what the city might need to do as well.
15. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
_________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
___________________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Date Approved:
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 2023
1:15 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM FOR REGULAR
MEETING
Council members Present: Peters, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
Absent: Feist
Staff Present:
Karen Darrow
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. PUBLIC FORUM-None.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
Items listed on the consent agenda are considered routine and may be enacted in one motion. Any item may be removed for discussion at the request of Council or the Public.
A. Adopt Resolution 22-23-* ratifying and extending the declaration of a local emergency in Sutter Creek due to extreme winter storm.
M/S Council member Peters/Swift to Adopt Resolution 22-23-27 ratifying and extending the declaration of a local emergency in Sutter Creek due to extreme winter storm.
AYES: Peters, Sierk, Swift and Gunselman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Feist
MOTION CARRIED
5. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:18 p.m.
_________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
__________________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Date Approved:
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: JODI STENECK, ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: WARRANTS TO BE PAID
RECOMMENDATION:
Attached you will find a current list of warrants to be paid.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Current list of warrants to be paid is $56,694.52
RESOLUTION 22-23-*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
AUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BODIES OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
WHEREAS, the City of Sutter Creek is committed to preserving and nurturing public access and participation in public meetings; and
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code sections 54950 – 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City’s legislative bodies conduct their business; and WHEREAS, the Brown Act, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and
WHEREAS, a proclamation is made when there is an actual incident, threat of disaster, or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the jurisdictions that are within the City’s boundaries, caused by natural, technological, or human-caused disasters; and WHEREAS, such conditions now exist in the City of Sutter Creek; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find that the Covid-19 emergency has caused, and will continue to cause, conditions of peril to the safety of persons within the City that are likely to be beyond the control of services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City, and desires to ratify the proclamation of state of emergency by the Governor of the State of California; and WHEREAS, as a consequence of the emergency, the City Council finds that the legislative bodies of the City of Sutter Creek shall conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek proclaims that an emergency continues to exist throughout the City of Sutter Creek. Providing the option for remote participation will allow for persons to participate in the meetings of the Council who would otherwise not do so because of medical reasons.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager and legislative bodies of the City of Sutter Creek are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) 30 days from the date of its adoption, or (ii) such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of the City of Sutter Creek may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 17th day of November, 2023 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Committee 2022 Proposed Tentative Meeting Times
City of Sutter Creek Committees
Sewer Committee Swift & Peters Swift/Peters As needed
Finance Committee Swift & Peters Gunselman/Sierk As needed Solid Waste Sierk Gunselman As needed
Marketing Committee Rianda & Swift Sierk/Feist As needed Monteverde Store Committee Gunselman Sierk As needed
Countywide Committees Council member Liaison
Amador County Recreation Association (ACRA)^ Sierk Sierk 2nd Wed @ 1pm Amador County Transportation & Transit Commission (ACTC/ACT)^ Peters 1st Thurs @ 9am Amador Council of Tourism (ACT)^ Rianda Feist
Amador Air District Board Rianda Sierk 3rd Tues @ 1:30pm Airport Land Use Commission* Peters Peters
Amador Regional Sanitation Agency (ARSA) Swift & Peters Swift/Peters 4th Wed @ 10am City Select Committee Mayor Mayor
Fire District Liaison Swift Swift 3rd Tues @ 7:30 pm
AB 939 JPA Sierk Gunselman As needed
Cemetery Gunselman & Sierk Feist
* This is the only committee where an alternate is needed.
DRAFT 2023 Sutter Creek City Council
Sutter Creek Committee and Countywide Committee Liaison Assignments TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Matt Ospital, City Engineer
SUBJECT: 37 Badger Street Storm Drain Repair Project
DATE: January 17, 2023
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 22-23-* accepting the work on the “37 Badger Street Storm Drain Repair Project” and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Notice of Completion and cause it to be filed with the Amador County Recorder.
BACKGROUND:
The contractor, Campbell Construction General Engineering, Inc. completed the work on August 10, 2022, in accordance with the Plans and Specifications approved by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek.
DISCUSSION:
All contract items of work for the Project have been completed in substantial compliance with the plans, specifications, codes and standards of the City. All work was determined to be substantially complete on August 10, 2022.
Final Project Costs are as follows:
Original Contract Amount $ 58,360.00
Final Contract Change Order $ 230.00
Final Contract Amount $ 58,590.00
RESOLUTION 22-23*
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF THE 37 BADGER STREET STORM DRAIN
REPAIR PROJECT, AND FILING A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND AUTHORIZING
RECORDATION THEREFORE
WHEREAS, City Engineer has certified all work on the "City of Sutter Creek – 37 Badger Street Storm Drain Repair Project" was completed on August 10, 2022, in accordance with the approved project plans and specifications, and
WHEREAS, the improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineering Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek does hereby accept the completed public improvements and authorizes the City to file a Notice of Completion with the Amador County Recorder.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek at a regular meeting on the 17th day of January 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
_________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER
_______________________________
When recorded, mail to:
City Manager
City of Sutter Creek
18 Main Street
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the completion of a Work of Improvement as follows:
Date of Completion: August 10, 2022
Name and Address of the Owner: City of Sutter Creek, 18 Main Street, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 Nature of the Interest or Estate of the Owner: Easement Description of the Site: 37 Badger Street Storm Drain Repair – Sutter Creek, California Name and Address of the Contractor for the above Work of Improvement: Campbell Construction General Engineering, Inc. 175 Sutter Hill Road, Sutter Creek, California 95685 General Statement of Kind of Work Done or Materials Furnished: Storm drain repair.
CITY OF SUTTER CREEK – OWNER
By______________________________
Amy Gedney, City Manager
AMY GEDNEY declares:
I am the City Manager of the City of Sutter Creek, the municipal corporation that executed the foregoing notice as owner of the aforesaid interest or estate in the property therein described; that I make this verification on behalf of said municipal corporation; that I have read this Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof, and that the facts stated therein are true.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Sutter Creek, California this ____ day of ________________, 2023.
_______________________________________
AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER
RESOLUTION 22-23-*
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK APPROVINGTHE FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022
AMADOR COUNTY REGIONAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE
PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Government Code 66000 et. seq., the City of Sutter Creek previously imposed regional traffic mitigation fees and amended said fees pursuant to Resolution 21-22-26; and WHEREAS, the purpose of said fees is to mitigate the impact of new developments on the regional transportation system of Amador County; and
WHEREAS, The County of Amador and the County’s five incorporated cities have all collected and deposited all regional traffic mitigation fees with the Amador County Transportation Commission (“ACTC”) which has maintained the funds in a separate non co-mingled capital facilities fund (“capital facilities fund”) established for the above stated purpose pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(a) and (b); and WHEREAS, the ACTC and the City of Sutter Creek have made available to the public an annual program implementation report for fiscal year 2021/22 (“Annual Report”) which is hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the Annual Report was prepared in accordance with Government Code Section 66001(d) and 66006(b)(1); and
WHEREAS, the City of Sutter Creek has reviewed the information provided in the Annual Report and determined the information contained therein is true and correct; and WHEREAS, the Annual Report reflects implementation of prior year recommendations of the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Oversight Committee as approved by the cities and County for programming and expending funds for projects consistent with the Amended and Restated Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) establishing the countywide Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program and the Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Nexus Plan 2000-2025 (“Nexus Plan”); and
WHEREAS, City of Sutter Creek has agendized and considered the Annual Report at a regularly scheduled City Council/Board of Supervisor meeting and considered public comment concerning the Annual Report during said meeting.
NOW THEREFORE the City of Sutter Creek, County of Amador, State of California, finds and determines the following:
1. The above recitals are true and represent findings of the City Council.
2. The City Council hereby approves the Annual Report for fiscal year 2021/22 as presented.
3. That all recommendations for funding are consistent with the MOU and the Nexus Plan as required.
4. The approval of the Annual Report and programming and expenditure of funds consistent with the previously approved MOU and Nexus Plan is not a “project” or otherwise an act requiring environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
5. That all Regional Traffic Mitigation Fees previously collected and not yet expended are accounted for and are still needed for the purposes for which they were collected.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek on the 17th day of November, 2023 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
____________________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
18 Main St., Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-0639 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
FROM: LARRY WHITE, BUILDING INSPECTOR
JODI ARROYOS, ACCOUNT TECHNICIAN
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND AMENDING THE 2022 CALIFORNIA
BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND OTHER UNIFORM CODES
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce and Waive First Reading of Ordinance No. _____Amending Sections 15.04.10 and
15.04.030 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code adopting and amending the 2022 California Building Standards Code and other Uniform Codes.
BACKGROUND:
The City last amended Chapter 15.04 to reflect the 2019 California Building Standards Code and Other Uniform Codes in 2020.
DISCUSSION:
Every three years the various California and National Building Codes are revised to reflect the latest in building and fire safety standards. In July 2022, the California Building Standards Commission approved the 2022 California Building Standards Code. In addition to various California-specific codes, it adopts and amends the 2021 International Building Code, 2021 International Residential Code, 2021 National Electrical Code, 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code and the 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code. According to state law, the 2022 California Building Standards Code takes effect on January 1, 2023. Other codes being adopted by the City are the Uniform Housing Code, the Uniform Building Security Code, Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and the International Property Maintenance Code.
While the 2022 California Building Standards Code takes effect on January 1, 2023, regardless of City action, state law allows cities to adopt and amend the codes to meet local needs. Specifically, the City is permitted to establish more restrictive building standards than those contained in the Code that are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The City of Sutter Creek, therefore, has more restrictive requirements for snow load, Class “A” roofing and fire sprinklers for buildings exceeding 5,000 square feet. The City is located within a less restrictive seismic area than the other counties and cities. Most projects located within the city limits are governed more by wind then seismic regulations.
The DRAFT Ordinance will adopt the 2022 California Building Standards Code and make minor amendments to it. These amendments are consistent with those adopted by the City Council Item 10A
during the 2019 code adoption cycle and include the amendments included in the 2019 code adoption cycle not adopted by the City. In addition to the California Building Standards Code, this ordinance adopts a number of other “building codes”. With the exception of the Uniform Housing Code, the City is not required to adopt these codes; however, their adoption assists staff’s enforcement of the California Building Standards Code and imposes additional beneficial regulations. These codes are the Uniform Housing Code, the Uniform Building Security Code, Uniform Swimming Pool, Spa and Hot Tub Code, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings and the International Property Maintenance Code.
Procedurally, the City must take special steps whenever it adopts a code by reference. It must (1) introduce the ordinance and conduct (or waive) a first reading, (2) schedule a public hearing that may coincide with the second reading, (3) publish notice of the hearing for fourteen days and (4) conduct the public hearing and adopt the ordinance. The scheduled action for the City Council meeting is the first of these four actions.
1 ORDINANCE NO.___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUTTER CREEK AMENDING SECTIONS 15.04.010 AND 15.04.030 OF THE SUTTER CREEK MUNICIPAL
CODE REGARDING ADOPTION OF BUILDING CODE UPDATES
The City Council of the City of Sutter Creek, California does ordain asfollows:
Section 1
Section 15.04.010 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code is amended as follows:
15.04.010 - Adoption of codes and related appendices.
A. The 2022 California Building Standards Administrative Code contained in Part 1 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is hereby adopted by reference as the Building Standards Administrative Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
B. The 2022 California Building Code contained in Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including Appendix C (Group U—Agricultural Building), Appendix H (Signs), Appendix I (Patio Covers) and Appendix J (Grading) is hereby adopted by reference as the Building Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
C. The 2022 California Residential Building Code contained in Part 2.5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is hereby adopted by reference as the Residential Building Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
D. The 2022 California Electrical Code contained in Part 3 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including Article 89, is hereby adopted by reference as the Electrical Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
E. The 2022 California Mechanical Code contained in Part 4 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is hereby adopted by reference as the Mechanical Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
F. The 2022 California Plumbing Code contained in Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is hereby adopted as the Plumbing Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
G. The 2022 California Energy Code contained in Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including Appendix 1-A is hereby adopted by reference as the Energy Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
H. The 2022 California Historical Building Code contained in Part 8 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is hereby adopted by reference as the Historical Building Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
I The 2022 California Fire Code contained in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is hereby adopted as the Fire Code of the City of Sutter Creek. 2 J. The 2022 California Existing Building Code contained in Part 10 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is hereby adopted by reference as the Existing Building Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
K. The 2022 California Green Building Standards Code contained in Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is hereby adopted by reference as the Green Building Standards Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
L. The 2022 California Referenced Standards Code contained in Part 12 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is hereby adopted by reference as the Referenced Standards Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
M. The 2021 International Property Maintenance Code as published by the International Code Council and referenced in Title 24, Part 2, of the California Building Code is hereby adopted by reference as the Property Maintenance Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
N. The 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is hereby adopted by reference as the Dangerous Buildings Code of the City of Sutter Creek.
O. The above-identified codes in this section 15.04.010 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Building Codes") are adopted for the purpose of prescribing regulations for the erection, construction, modification, repair, maintenance, demolition, use and occupancy of buildings and structures. One copy of each of the Building Codes shall be maintained for use and examination of the public in the office of the building official.
Section 2
The City Council finds as follows:
A. California Health and Safety Code, Section 13869.7, 17958.7, and 18941.5, allow for amendments reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geographical or topographical conditions.
B. The topography of the City of Sutter Creek presents several factors which impede response times: steep and narrow roadways, the city divided by a major water way, Sutter Creek, and areas with insufficient water supplies.
C. The City of Sutter Creek is surrounded by State Resource Area (SRA) high hazard areas which gives potential for wildland fires moving into the city. With terrain and steep canyons creating challenging access, changes in the code allow for more self-sustaining defensible fire protection.
D. The City of Sutter Creek presents problems for a timely response due to climatic conditions, from fog to occasional snow.
E. Based on the afore-cited topographical and climatic findings the City of Sutter Creek finds it necessary to amend the Code to provide additional fire safety measures in an attempt to reduce the severity of fire and potential loss of life and property. 3 F. In addition, the City of Sutter Creek is at elevation 1,188 feet, and therefore receives snow at such intervals as require that roof of structures to be constructed to accommodate snow loads of a minimum of 20 pounds per square feet. Due to this topographical and climactic condition, the adoption of a local snow-load requirement is necessary to protect the potential loss of life and property.
Section 3
In light of the findings in the preceding section, Section 15.04.030 of the Sutter Creek Municipal Code is amended as follows:
15.04.030 - Amendments to California Building Code.
The provisions of this section 15.04.030 shall constitute local amendments to the crossreferenced provisions of the 2022 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 and shall be deemed to amend the cross-referenced section in said Code with the respective provisions set forth in this section
15.04.030.
A. Section 903.2 of the California Building Code is amended by adding, at the end of the text of that section, a new subsection to read as follows:
22. NEW STRUCTURES. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in occupancies 5,000 square feet and larger exclusive of area separations as defined in the California Building Code.
This requirement may be waived by the Building Official if the building is divided into areas of less than 5,000 square feet. Such division shall be made by the construction of fire wall(s) which meet the requirement of Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 of the California Building Code.
The integrity of the said fire wall shall be maintained as defined in the California Building Code. In the event such integrity is not maintained, the building shall be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
B. Section 903.2 of the California Building Code is amended by adding, at the end of the text of that section, a new subsection to read as follows: 23. EXISTING STRUCTURES. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided in existing structures when there is a change of character of the occupancy or use of any building which may, in the opinion of the Building Official increase or may cause to increase the hazard of fire or threat to life and safety.
C. Section 1608A.1 of the California Building Code is amended to add the following sentence at the end of the subsection as follows: (1) The snow load for the City of Sutter Creek shall be 20 pounds per square foot.
Section 4
All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. 4 Section 5
The City Council determines that the provisions of this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act because the instant ordinance involves continuing administrative activities and thus is not a project, as the Act defines, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(2) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. To the extent the adoption of this Ordinance constitutes a project, the City Council finds pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) that the project is exempt from environmental review because it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of the ordinance would not have any significant impact on the environment.
This ordinance shall be published and posted in the manner required by law by the City Clerk.
Introduced at a meeting of the City Council of Sutter Creek on January 17, 2023 and enacted by the City Council of the City of Sutter Creek at a regular meeting held on February 6, 2023.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Sutter Creek City Council, held on this 6
th day of February 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Claire Gunselman, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Karen Darrow, City Clerk
Karen Darrow <[email protected]>
To All City Council members
1 message
Amy Gedney <[email protected]> Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 4:10 PM To: Amy Gedney <[email protected]>
Bcc: [email protected]
It has been my privilege to serve the citizens of Sutter Creek since January 2014. During this time, the City has accomplished many good things for our residents and there are many completed or in-progress projects and improvements that will serve the community for decades into the future.
It is now time for me to submit my resignation as City Manager. My last day with the City will be February 24, 2023.
The City of Sutter Creek has a tremendous staff. It has been a privilege working alongside City staff and I can not underscore enough the value of their work and dedication. It is through their skill and dedication that the City has accomplished so much. They are the strength of the organization.
Thank you for the opportunities provided to me over my time of service and I extend my best wishes for the future success of the City of Sutter Creek.
Respectfully,
Amy
Amy Gedney
City Manager
City of Sutter Creek, CA
DATE: JANUARY 17, 2023
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL
FROM: AMY GEDNEY, CITY MANAGER & GRANT REYNOLDS,
WASTEWATER ENGINEER
REQUESTED ACTION:
For information and staff direction.
BACKGROUND:
Since the early 2000s, the City of Sutter Creek’s wastewater treatment plant has been an ongoing issue for the City Council. The costs for upgrade exceed the ability of the City to pay for such an expansive upgrade- even with grants. In general the system is an antiquated system with ties to multiple agreements linked to outside agencies from the 1980s. Over the years, the City has looked at multiple ways to address the collection system, while updating the treatment system and finding alternatives for the discharge of secondary effluent. Below is a synopsis of the overall system as well more recent information that pertains to the City’s current grant funding.
Timeline:
1949 – City’s first main collection system installed. First clarigester was built at current location.
1974 – Second clarigester was built along with the current trickling filter. Initial overflow storage Pond constructed. Permitted Average Daily Dry Weather Flow 200,000 gals./day. 1979-1980 – Line from WWTP added to ARSA system for disposal. 2 1982-1983 – Plant upgrade (Larry Baker) (2) rotostrainers installed in building. Chlorine contact chamber built. O&M Manual created by Larry Baker outlining WWTP expansion steps for additional capacity. Permitted Average Daily Dry Weather Flow increased from 200,000 gals./day to 300,000 gals./day.
1990 – Sludge Drying Bed constructed.
1991 – Plant Upgrade (Gene Weatherby). New bar screen installed. New grit chamber built. (2) additional rotostrainers installed with building. Office with Lab area below constructed. Permitted Average Daily Dry Weather Flow increased from 300,000 gals./day to 480,000 gals./day.
1993 – Existing Chlorine Building constructed.
1995 – Emergency Overflow Pond Expanded.
2000 – Replaced Trickling Filter Tower.
2001 – Shaftless Screw Conveyor from Bar Screen to Grit Bin Installed. 2001 – Smoke Testing of Collection System completed to address I & I at WWTP. City staff and a contractor completed repair items on findings list related to sewer lines maintained by the City. Action related to repairing laterals identified to be fixed was never taken.
2004 – WWTP/ARSA System Title 22 Engineering Report prepared by ThompsonHysell Engineers as a part of Gold Rush Ranch proposed WWTP expansion. 2007
Original HDR Engineers Sutter Creek Wastewater Master Plan completed in August, 2007 as a condition of the Gold Rush Ranch Project. This Master Plan was updated June 2009 and February 2010.
Preliminary Design Report Interim Treatment Facility (PDRITF) completed by HDR.
September: ARSA, Ione, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CDCR, sign an agreement on how Preston Reservoir water allocations will be managed. 2008
Plant Upgrade (HDR). This was completed as a result of the findings from PDRITF.
Emergency Overflow Pond Expanded to approximately 1 million gallons. HDPE Liner for Pond was installed. Electrical Service Panel replaced and upgraded. Panel for 3 emergency pumps and recirculation pumps was not upgraded. Sludge Screw Press installed. Building for Sludge Screw Press, Emergency Generator, and sludge flocculation chemicals constructed. No additional treatment capacity occurred as a result of this upgrade.
2009 – June 2009 HDR Master Plan Updated. (Document available in City Files). 2010 – February 2010 HDR Master Plan Updated. (Document available in City Files). 2011
Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP Process Evaluation completed by IRM/WL Troxel & Associates (Document available from WRFED ). Capacities for each Unit Process at the WWTP are evaluated in this document.
Smoke testing of portions of the collection system completed to address I & I problems at WWTP. City staff completes some correction work. Rabb Street main line replaced by contractor.
2012
In conjunction with Aquality Engineers, who was a subconsultant to the City at the time, a Repair and Replacement plan for the WWTP was created for the window of the next four years (2013-2017). This plan was not implemented at the time due to direction of WWTP replacement. (Document available form WRFED).
November - Draft Wastewater Master Plan Update completed by HydroScience. (Document available in City Files)
2017
January – February – significant rain events increased the amount of water in both Henderson and Preston Reservoirs.
March: City Council authorized work on the Master Plan to commence.
May: Preston Reservoir nearly overtops.
July: Ione sends a letter to ARSA indicating that they would like to end the 5-year agreement.
September: The Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Cleanup and Abatement Order, CAO, which would require ARSA to alter its operations significantly. (It should 4 be noted that ARSA does not own its facilities. They are leased from the State with the lease ending in 2037.)
November: ARSA, Ione, and CDCR settle negotiations regarding the 2007 Agreement and agree on terms of payment for tertiary treatment to Ione.
December:
HydroScience completed an additional Master Plan Update. (Document available in City Files). From this update the City decided to pursue the best economic alternative presented in the Update. The cost to build a Tertiary Plant with direct discharge was $33.0 million (2017 dollars).
Trickling Filter Arms replaced at WWTP. Thoroseal applied to contact chamber.
Completed Creek Line CCTV and Manhole Lining Projects to attempt to track and reduce Infiltration & Inflow (I & I ) to WWTP. After this work was completed three additional years of manhole lining projects were completed (2018-2020). 2018
January - February: Carollo Engineers completed a Peer Review of Hydroscience’s 2017 Master Plan Update. They generally agreed with the conclusions presented in the 2017 Update. Carollo’s conclusion on which WWTP alternative to pursue agreed with the City’s decision. A Tertiary WWTP with discharge to Sutter. (Document available in City Files).
June- August: Grant application submitted and revised to develop a Plan of Study for a Design – Build of a tertiary treatment plant with a direct discharge option. 2019
May: Sewer Rate Study begins.
December: City Council adopted a Sewer Rate Study, effective January 2020. (See Attachment A: Sewer Rate Study).
2020
August: City of Sutter Creek approved for grant to pursue Design – Build option to construct Tertiary WWTP at existing site. City contracts with Carollo Engineers to 5 present preliminary engineering and funding avenues for the construction of a Tertiary WWTP.
2021
February - May: Carollo Engineers completed a preliminary design for proposed Tertiary WWTP. The estimated cost to design and construct the new Tertiary WWTP increased from $33.0 million (Hydroscience, 2017 MP Update) to $50 million in capital costs (Carollo, 2021). The I & I problem that the city was already investigating was brought up as large concern for the sizing of the new WWTP and its components. Due to the time constraints and difficulties in obtaining new Waste Discharge Requirements no additional WWTP capacity is planned with this upgrade. The attached documents (See Attachment B: Carollo) outline the discussions regarding estimated costs for tertiary treatment as well as exploration of alternatives and possible options.
December: ARSA sends Ione letter indicating the 5-year agreement is null as they did not satisfy the terms of the Agreement.
2022
March: ARSA staff began pursuing discussions with the City of Ione regarding 2022 water balances.
With the assistance of California Rural Water, staff completed smoke testing of the existing collection system to try and find I&I. No large infiltration points were found.
Summer:
The Sewer Committee met six times over the course of 2022. A WWTP Capital Improvement Plan was created from the 2012 Repair and Replacement (R&R) Plan to outline items at the existing plant that were in need of R&R that could help extend the life of the existing WWTP. A priority chart for the implementation of plan was also created. (See Attachment C: Sewer Agendas).
Ione continues to refuse to accept ARSA water.
Additional coating of Thoroseal applied to Chlorine Contact Chamber. Last coating was applied in 2017.
Staff continues to actively pursue I&I. City Council approved the purchase of two Manhole Flow Metering set-ups. To help track I&I during storm flows. Prior to this 6 approval, a search for rental companies that provided meters was pursued with no results.
But, prior to purchasing the new meters the City was contacted by a company that provides the rental service. A rental agreement for 10 meters, for use for a month for $14,400/month was obtained. This includes software for monitoring, staff training for moving and installing meters, and delivery and pick up of the meters. We are hoping this produces better information regarding I&I.
Two (2) new Emergency Pumps and (2) new Recirculation Pumps are on order for the WWTP.
Current permitted capacity at the WWTP is 480,000 gals./day. Current Average Daily Dry Weather Flow to the WWTP is 301,000 gals./day. The Current Committed Flow Capacity to the WWTP is approximately 422,000 gals./day. This Committed Capacity includes 39,000 gals./day to Amador City and 115,500 gals./day to the Amador Water Agency who operates CSA #4 (Martell Area).
September: ARSA files lawsuit against Ione and CDCR. (See Attachment D: ARSA) DISCUSSION:
With the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) no additional capacity is planned.
Many of the items on the list are delayed maintenance due to the direction of WWTP replacement planning. The plan of the CIP is to extend the life of the WWTP approximately 8-10 years in order to allow a solution for replacement and the possibility of eventual expansion to be obtained. As a slow growth community, capacity expansion would require significant growth to pay for the additional capacity. The City has been grappling with wastewater issues for many years in an effort to keep costs to a minimum and devise a best-case scenario, as all of the options require a significant capital investment.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study
Final Report
September 11, 2019
ES-2
September 11, 2019
Ms. Amy Gedney
City Manager
City of Sutter Creek
18 Main St.
Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Re: 2019 Sewer Rate Study
Dear Ms. Gedney,
Hildebrand Consulting and the Reed Group are pleased to present this 2019 Sewer Rate Study (Study) that we performed for City of Sutter Creek (City). We appreciate the fine assistance provided by you and all of the members of the City staff who participated in the Study.
If you or others at the City have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at:
[email protected]
(510) 316-0621
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City and look forward to the possibility of doing so again in the near future.
Sincerely,
Mark Hildebrand Robert Reed
Hildebrand Consulting, LLC The Reed Group, Inc.
Enclosure
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Executive Summary
ES-1
Executive Summary
This Executive Summary presents an overview of the results of the 2019 Sewer Rate Study (Study) that was conducted for the City of Sutter Creek (City) by Hildebrand Consulting, LLC and The Reed Group, Inc. The full report provides details regarding the assumptions, procedures, and results of the Study.
Study Background - The City’s Sewer Utility provides sewer collection, treatment and conveyance/disposal services for over 2,000 residential and business accounts located within the City of Sutter Creek, as well as to the City of Amador City (Amador City) and the Martell wastewater service area of the Amador Water Agency (AWA). The last sewer rate study (in 2008) recommended three sequential rate increases and, while the recommendations were accepted by the City, only the initial rate increase was actually implemented. The deferral of the two latter rate increases resulted in lost revenue of over $2 million in rate revenue since 2009. Furthermore, it has now been more than ten years since the City last adjusted its sewer rates.
Scope and Objective of Study - The scope of this Study was to prepare a multi-year financial plan, update the cost-of-service analysis, review the City’s existing rate structure, and propose a 5-year rate program. The primary objectives of this Study were to:
i. Develop a multi-year financial management plan that integrates the City’s operational and capital project funding needs;
ii. Identify future adjustments to Sewer Rates and Service Charges to help ensure adequate revenues to meet the Sewer Utility’s ongoing service and financial obligations;
iii. Determine the cost of providing sewer service to the City’s retail customers and two wholesale customers (Amador City and AWA) using industry-accepted methodologies; and
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Executive Summary
ES-2
iv. Recommend specific modifications to the City’s existing rate structure in order to ensure that the City is equitably recovering the cost of service and comporting with industry standards and California’s legal requirements.
This Study applied methodologies that are aligned with industry standard practices for rate setting as promulgated by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and all applicable law, including California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(b), commonly known as Proposition 218.
Study Approach - The City will likely incur significant capital costs in the near future as a result of a mandatory project to upgrade or replace the existing wastewater treatment plant with a tertiary plant (WWTP Project). The timing and the magnitude of those costs, however, are still under development. As it stands, even without the costs of the WWTP Project, the Sewer Utility requires rate revenue increases in order to pay for operating costs and to fund back-logged repair and replacement (R&R) capital projects for the sewer collection system. As such, this Study proposes to approach the sewer rate plan in two phases. A Phase 1 rate plan that considers all costs with exception of the WWTP Project, and a Phase 2 rate plan with a financial plan that includes the cost of the WWTP Project and associated financing. The Phase 2 rate plan is expected to supersede the Phase 1 rate plan within the next year.
Financial Plan - This Study’s 10-year financial plan is designed to allow the Sewer Utility to meet Phase 1 revenue requirements and financial performance objectives throughout the financial planning period while striving to limit rate increases. The City provided historical and budgeted financial information associated with operation of the sewer system, including historical and budgeted operating costs, a multi-year capital improvement program (CIP), and outstanding debt service obligations. The Study recommends that the City adopt reserve policies, including a 3-month Operating Reserve and a $1.0 million Emergency Reserve.
Rate revenue is collected by the City from retail customers (individual residential and commercial customers within the City of Sutter Creek) and wholesale customers City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Executive Summary
ES-3
(Amador City and AWA). Rate revenue is collected from retail customers through Sewer Service Charges, which are assessed to the City’s customers based on an assigned number of equivalent single-family units (ESFUs). Rate revenue is collected from wholesale customers through charges based on a cost allocation methodology.
The collection system capital costs for renewal and replacement are included in this Phase 1 study, while the WWTP Project costs will be addressed as part of Phase 2. This Phase 1 study does not propose any new debt in order to finance the collection system capital projects.
Based upon the financial data, assumptions, and reserve targets, this Study proposes a Phase 1 5-year schedule of rate adjustments as detailed in the table below.
It should be noted that a typical utility financial plan attempts to spread rate increases over several years rather than “front-load” a large rate increase in the first year.
Because of the lapsed time since the last rate adjustment a single, large initial rate increase is necessary in order to address the majority of the Sewer Utility’s existing revenue needs (i.e. all costs except for the WWTP Project) and financially position the Sewer Utility in advance of Phase 2.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Executive Summary
ES-4
Cost-of-Service and Rate Structure - A cost-of-service analysis evaluates the cost of providing sewer service and proportionately allocates those costs to customer classes and rate structure components to ensure the proposed rate structure is aligned with the costs of providing sewer service. This proportionate allocation of costs helps to ensure equity among the City’s ratepayers, Amador City, and AWA and to comply with Proposition 218. To do this, this Study employed well-established industry practices as recognized by the WEF and other accepted industry standards.
The City’s retail customers are currently charged based on ESFUs, which are the basic units of wastewater utility service and reflect the average volume of wastewater flow from residential dwelling units. All residential accounts pay a Sewer Service Charge rate of 1 ESFU per dwelling unit, while Commercial customers are assigned an ESFU value based on the respective account’s average daily winter water usage divided by 213 gallons (the assumed daily indoor water usage by residential accounts). Based on conversations with City staff, this Study recommends retaining the existing rate structure with a couple modifications. The most material change was to lower winter water usage benchmark from 213 gallons per day to 131 gpd. This reduction is based on an analysis of current winter water usage characteristics, as described in more detail in the full report.
Wholesale Cost Allocation – The Study proposes to continue to allocate costs to Amador City and AWA in a manner that is nearly identical to the methodology that has historically been used by the City, which involves allocating costs based on actual wastewater flows, assigned capacity, and collection system utilization.
Proposed Sewer Service Charge – After accounting for costs that are shared with Amador City and AWA, the revenue requirement for the City’s retail accounts for the first year of the Study (FY 2019/20, also referred to as the “Test Year”) is $1,767,200, which is divided by the (new) total number of ESFUs (2,031) to yield a Sewer Service Charge of $72.49 during the first year of the Study. Following the first year, the Sewer Service City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Executive Summary
ES-5
Charge is simply increased by the rate increases described by the financial plan. The proposed Phase 1 rate schedules for the next 5 years is summarized below.
Current
Jan. 1,
2020
July 1,
2021
July 1,
2022
July 1,
2023
July 1,
2024
ESFU Rate: $60.57 $72.49 $73.94 $75.42 $76.93 $78.47
ESFU Rate Increase: (na) 19.7% * 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Vacancy Rate:** $30.28 $49.30 $50.28 $51.29 $52.31 $53.36 * Overall rate revenue increase (i.e. revenue across all customer classes) in 2020 will be 35%.
The change to the ESFU rate is 19.7% because most commercial accounts will be assigned more ESFUs than previously. Commercial accounts will collectively pay 78.2% more in Year 1. ** Based on 68% of standard ESFU rate, based on utility fixed costs.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Table of Contents
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 2 SEWER UTILITY BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 2 RATE STUDY BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 3 SCOPE &OBJECTIVES OF STUDY ................................................................................ 3 STUDY METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 4 STUDY APPROACH ................................................................................................... 5 PHASE 1 FINANCIAL PLAN ......................................................... 6 FINANCIAL DATA & ASSUMPTIONS .............................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Sewer Utility Funds .......................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 Beginning Fund Balances ............................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Reserve Targets ............................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Customer Growth ........................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.5 Rate Revenues ................................................................................................................................ 10
2.1.6 Non-Rate Revenues ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.7 Operation and Maintenance Expenses ........................................................................................ 12
2.1.8 Cost Escalation .............................................................................................................................. 13
2.1.9 Debt Service Coverage .................................................................................................................. 14
2.1.10 Capital Improvement Program..................................................................................................... 14
2.1.11 Future Borrowing Assumptions .................................................................................................... 15 PROPOSED RATE REVENUE INCREASES ...................................................................... 15 COST-OF-SERVICE & RATE STRUCTURE.................................... 18 CUSTOMER STATISTICS .......................................................................................... 18 RATE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 19
3.2.1 Winter Water Usage As Estimator of Sewer Flow ......................................................................... 20
3.2.2 Vacancy Charge ............................................................................................................................. 20 WHOLESALE COST ALLOCATION ............................................................................... 21 CALCULATION OF THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES ........................................................ 24
3.4.1 Summary of Equivalent Single-Family Units ............................................................................... 24
3.4.2 Calculation of Sewer Service Charge ........................................................................................... 24
3.4.3 Proposed Rate Schedule ............................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 26 Schedule 1 - Budgeted and Projected Cash Inflows
Schedule 2 - Budgeted and Projected Cash Outflows
Schedule 3 - Capital Improvement Program
Schedule 4 - Cash Flow Pro Forma
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study List of Acronyms
1 List of Acronyms
ARSA Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
AWA Amador Water Agency
AWWA American Water Works Association
CIP Capital improvement program
DCR Debt service coverage ratio
ENR Engineering News Record (periodical)
ESFU Equivalent single-family unit; a standard unit measure of sewer utility service based on the estimated volume of sewer flow from an average residential dwelling
FY Fiscal year (which ends on June 30 for the City)
gpd Gallons per day
JPA Joint powers agency
mgd Millions of gallons per day
O&M Operations and maintenance
R&R Repair and replacement
SSMP Sewer System Management Plan
TGAL Thousands of gallons
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WEF Water Environment Federation
WWTP Wastewater treatment plant
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Introduction
2 INTRODUCTION
The Reed Group, Inc. and Hildebrand Consulting, LLC were retained by City of Sutter Creek (City) to conduct a Sewer Rate Study (Study). This report describes in detail the assumptions, procedures, and results of the Study, including conclusions and recommendations.
SEWER UTILITY BACKGROUND
The City’s Sewer Utility provides sewer collection, treatment and conveyance/disposal services for over 2,000 residential and business accounts located within the City of Sutter Creek, the City of Amador City (Amador City), and the former Amador County Service Area #4 (CSA #4), which is now owned and operated by the Amador Water Agency (AWA) as Wastewater Improvement District #11 (WID #11 or Martell service area), which generally comprises the Martell and the Ridge Road areas. The Sewer Utility collects and treats about 138 million gallons of wastewater per year at the City’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
Secondary effluent produced by the WWTP is discharged to the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) system for storage and reuse/disposal. ARSA is a joint power agency (JPA) providing wastewater conveyance and disposal services to its member agencies: City of Sutter Creek, Amador City, and Amador County. The ARSA system is a series of pipelines, storage reservoirs, stock troughs, and land application sites southwest of the City’s WWTP. The City of Ione currently accepts a portion of ARSA’s treated effluent at the lower Henderson facilities as part of the 2007 Ione Disposal Agreement. The agreement with the City of Ione includes a five-year cancellation clause, which was invoked by Ione in July 2017. As a result, it is anticipated that the ARSA system will no longer be available to discharge treated effluent to the City of Ione for use beyond July 2022. The implication is that the City will need to find an alternative for discharging a portion of its treated wastewater. The most likely solution City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Introduction
3 will be to upgrade or replace the City’s WWTP to a tertiary treatment plant and also build a conveyance system for water re-use (collectively the “WWTP Project”).
RATE STUDY BACKGROUND
The last sewer rate study was conducted by The Reed Group in 2008. The 2008 study recommended three sequential rate increases (two increases in 2008 and another in 2009) in order to fund costs of upgrading the WWTP; implementing a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) as part of statewide Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs); and increases in wastewater disposal costs.
While the recommendations of the 2008 study were accepted, only the initial rate increase was actually implemented. The deferral of the two latter rate increases (which would have increased rates by about 19%) resulted in lost revenue of over $2 million in rate revenue since 2009. Furthermore, it has now been more than ten years since the City last adjusted its sewer rates. It is worth noting that the San Francisco Consumer Price Index has increased by approximately 33% since January 2009. The sewer fund has managed to maintain a positive fund balance through efficient operations and by deferring most capital spending.
SCOPE & OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The scope of this Study was to prepare a multi-year financial plan, update the cost-ofservice analysis, review the City’s existing rate structure, and propose a 5-year rate program. The primary objectives of this Study were to:
i. Develop a multi-year financial management plan that integrates the City’s operational and capital project funding needs;
ii. Identify future rate adjustments to Sewer Rates and Service Charges to help ensure adequate revenues to meet the Sewer Utility’s ongoing service and financial obligations;
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Introduction
4 iii. Determine the cost of providing sewer service to the City’s customers and wholesale customers (Amador City and AWA) using industry-accepted methodologies; and
iv. Recommend specific modifications to the City’s existing rate structure in order to ensure that the City is equitably recovering the cost of service and comporting with industry standards and California’s legal requirements.
STUDY METHODOLOGY
This Study applied methodologies that are aligned with industry standard practices for rate setting as promulgated by the Water Environment Federation (WEF) and all applicable law, including California Constitution Article XIII D, Section 6(b), commonly known as Proposition 218.
The Study began with development of a multi-year financial management plan that determined the level of annual rate revenue required to cover projected annual operating expenses, debt service (including coverage targets), and capital cost requirements while maintaining adequate reserves. A financial planning model was customized to reflect the Sewer Utility’s financial dynamics and latest available data for the sewer operations in order to develop a long-term financial management plan, inclusive of projected annual revenue requirements and corresponding annual rate adjustments.
Revenue requirements calculated in the financial plan for FY 2019/20 were then used to perform a detailed cost-of-service analysis. The cost-of-service analysis and rate structure design were conducted based upon principles outlined by the WEF, legal requirements (Proposition 218) and other generally accepted industry practices to develop rates that reflect the cost of providing service.
Recommendations for the financial plan and updated rate structure were presented to the City Council on October 7, 2019 and a Public Hearing to adopt the rates has been scheduled for December 2, 2019.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Introduction
5 STUDY APPROACH
As indicated at the bottom of Section 1.1, the City will likely incur significant new costs as a result of the future WWTP Project. This will include significant capital cost to construct new facilities (including financing costs) as well as additional operating costs.
The timing and the magnitude of those costs, however, are still under development at this time. As it stands, even without the costs of the WWTP Project, the Sewer Utility requires rate revenue increases in order to pay for operating costs (general inflation has been about 33% since the last rate increase, see Section 1.2) and fund back-logged repair and replacement (R&R) capital projects for the sewer collection system (which have been mostly deferred since 2009).
Given the above, this Study proposes to approach the sewer rate plan in two phases.
Phase 1 consists of a 10-year financial plan that considers all costs with exception of the WWTP Project. In addition to the fact that Phase 2 costs are still under development, the WWTP Project will create a significant change to the cost-of-service analysis by adding more annual costs (largely in the form of debt service) to the treatment function of the Sewer Utility. This, in turn, will have a material impact to the costs allocated to the City’s customers, Amador City and AWA.
Phase 1 will propose a 5-year rate schedule, with the initial rate increases occurring on January 1, 2020. Phase 2 will be a separate 10-year financial plan that will be completed once the costs and timing of the WWTP Project have been more completely developed.
Phase 2 will include a 5-year rate plan that will supersede the Phase 1 rate plan. While the timing of the Phase 2 study is not yet known, it is currently expected to be completed in 2020.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
6 PHASE 1 FINANCIAL PLAN
This section presents the Phase 1 financial plan, including a description of the source data and financial assumptions. The section concludes with a 5-year, Phase 1 plan for sewer rate adjustments. Schedules 1 through 4 (attached at the end of this report) include detailed data supporting the financial plan discussed herein.
This Study’s 10-year financial plan was developed through interactive work sessions with City staff and the City Council’s Sewer Committee. As a result of this process, the Study has produced a robust financial plan that will allow the Sewer Utility to meet Phase 1 revenue requirements and financial performance objectives throughout the projection period while striving to minimize rate increases. This includes maintaining prudent reserves, positioning the Sewer Utility to meet the future financial requirements of Phase 2, and ensuring that the City’s retail customers, Amador City and AWA are all paying fair and equitable amounts for services provided.
FINANCIAL DATA & ASSUMPTIONS
The City provided historical and budgeted financial information associated with operation of the sewer system, including historical and budgeted operating costs, a multi-year capital improvement program (CIP), and outstanding debt service obligations. City staff also assisted in providing other assumptions and policies, such as projected ARSA costs, operating and capital reserve targets, and escalation rates for operating costs (all of which are described in the following subsections).
2.1.1 SEWER UTILITY FUNDS
The Sewer Utility enterprise is comprised of six funds that are used to manage the Sewer Utility’s use of funds in a transparent manner. While the financial plan model for this Study was developed with an understanding of those funds, the model did not attempt to replicate the movement of all moneys between funds. Rather the financial model was City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
7 used to evaluate the financial condition of the Sewer Utility fund as a whole. The following describes the purpose of each fund and how the financial plan model reflected the use of those funds.
Fund 10 (Wastewater Operating Fund) is the primary fund of the Sewer Utility and receives most Sewer Utility revenues, including wastewater rate revenues. Fund 10 pays for all operating and maintenance expenditures and transfers funds to other funds as described below.
Fund 11 (Wastewater Capital Replacement Fund or “WCRF”) controls and tracks the use of money for replacement and upgrade of wastewater treatment plant facilities. Fund 11 is a required fund under the terms of agreements for wastewater treatment for the Amador City and the Martell/Ridge Road areas. A portion of the wastewater rates charged to retail and wholesale users is transferred from Fund 10 to Fund 11 annually to cover current and future replacement costs. Fund 11 also received Connection Fee revenue which is restricted for the purpose of funding treatment plant capacity expansion projects.
Fund 12 (Wastewater Collection System Replacement Fund) controls and tracks the use of money for replacement of collection system facilities. A portion of the wastewater rates charged to the City’s customers is transferred from Fund 10 to Fund 12 annually to cover current and future replacement costs of the collection system. Fund 12 also received Connection Fee revenue which is restricted for the purpose of funding connection system capacity expansion projects.
Fund 15 (Wastewater Debt Service Reserve Fund)) controls and tracks the use of money for the repayment of debt. A portion of the wastewater rates charged to the City’s customers is transferred from Fund 10 to Fund 15 annually to cover current debt service obligations.
Fund 80 (Effluent Disposal Fund) controls and tracks the use of money for replacement and upgrade of effluent disposal facilities. A portion of the wastewater rates charged City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
8 to retail and wholesale users is transferred from Fund 10 to Fund 80 annually to cover current and future replacement costs.
The financial plan was developed to serve as a planning tool for managing the Sewer Utility’s overall financial needs, constraints, and opportunities, as well as for determining annual rate revenue needs. It is primarily a cash flow model and differs from the City’s budgets and financial statements.
2.1.2 BEGINNING FUND BALANCES
The FY 2018/19 beginning fund balances for each fund described in Section 2.1.1 are summarized in Table 1.
The cash balances in Fund 11 and Fund 12 are assumed to have been funded by Connection Fee revenue and therefore, for the purposes of this Study, are treated as restricted. This financial plan utilizes the available unrestricted funds and does not evaluate the potential uses of restricted funds, which are limited and do not affect analyses for rate setting purposes.
2.1.3 RESERVE TARGETS
Reserves for utilities are cash balances that are maintained in order to (a) comply with contractual obligations (e.g. bond covenants), (b) protect the utility from unexpected financial events, and/or (c) accommodate operational and capital program cash flow Fund 10 - Sewer M&O $1,430,000
Fund 11 - Sewer WCRF Hook up Fees (Restricted) $404,000 Fund 12 - Sewer Line Replacement (Restricted) $26,000
Fund 14 - Sewer Cap Reserves -$1,000
Fund 15 - Sewer Debt Service $0
Fund 80 - Effluent Disposal $11,000
Restricted: $430,000
Unrestricted: $1,440,000
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
9 needs. Often multiple reserves are maintained, each with a specific function. In addition to the direct benefits of financial stability, reserves can help utilities obtain higher credit rankings, which can then help qualify the utility for cheaper debt. Credit rating agencies evaluate utilities on their financial stability, which includes adherence to formally adopted reserve targets.
The following recommended reserve policies for the City’s Sewer Utility build on the recommendations made in 2008 rate study report. The recommended reserve policies are consistent with 1) the author’s industry experience for similar systems, 2) findings of reserve studies conducted by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), and 3) healthy reserve levels for public utilities per the evaluation criteria published by rating agencies (e.g. Fitch, Moody’s, and Standard & Poor’s).
Operating Reserve – The Operating Reserve is maintained in order to meet the liquidity and cash flow needs for the Sewer Utility’s day-to-day operations. This reserve ensures continuity of service regardless of short-term changes in cash flow or sudden increases in operating costs. As recommended in the 2008, this Study recommends that the Operating Reserve be maintained at twenty five percent (25%) of the annual operating budget, including debt service.
Given the FY 2018/19 O&M budget of $1.62 million, the targeted Operating Reserve for that year would be about $410 thousand.
Emergency Reserve – This Emergency Reserve is intended to be used during operational or financial emergencies or other unanticipated events, which can have a dramatic and immediate impact on the operations, assets or financial condition of the Sewer Utility. It is recommended that the target amount of the Emergency Reserve be at least $1.0 million, which represents the estimated cash requirement for addressing the catastrophic failure of a major component in the Sewer Utility infrastructure. The targeted level for this Emergency Reserve should be increased by the Engineering News Record’s (ENR) 20-Cities Construction Cost Index (CCI).
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
10 In the future, the City may want to also consider creating a Capital Improvement and Replacement Reserve designed to smooth the inherent variability of the capital spending program. In other words, this reserve would be drawn down during years of higher-than-average capital spending and conversely the reserve would be built up during years when capital spending is below average. Such an approach can help reduce the need for large rate adjustments and help ensure continuous funding for capital replacement and rehabilitation projects. This Study recommends that this reserve be considered in conjunction with the development of the Phase 2 financial plan.
2.1.4 CUSTOMER GROWTH
Over the past 5 years the Sewer Utility has experienced an average of 4 new accounts per year connecting to the sewer system. This corresponds with a growth rate of approximately 0.35%. This Study assumes that this rate of growth will continue over the 10-year planning period.
2.1.5 RATE REVENUES
Rate revenue is the revenue generated from customers for sewer service. In the City’s case, rate revenue is collected from retail customers (individual residential and commercial customers within the City of Sutter Creek) and wholesale customers (Amador City and AWA). Rate revenue is collected from the City’s customers through Sewer Service Charges, which are assessed to each customer based on an assigned number of equivalent single-family units (ESFUs). Rate revenue is collected from wholesale customers through charges determined based a cost allocation methodology as described in the City’s Contract for Sewage Treatment Plant Capacity City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
11 (dated October 31, 2000) with Amador County1. The allocation of costs to wholesale customers is described in more detail in Section 3.3.
This Study’s financial plan proposes annual rate revenue adjustments that will meet the Sewer Utility’s revenue requirements. Budget and projected rate revenues are listed in Schedule 12.
2.1.6 NON-RATE REVENUES
In addition to rate revenue, the Sewer Utility receives other revenue, including reimbursements from ARSA (for the City’s operational support of the ARSA system), septic service fees (for septage discharged to the WWTP), miscellaneous fees, connection fee revenue3, and interest revenue on investments. Estimates of ARSA reimbursements were based on budgeted costs associated with supporting ARSA operations. Estimates of interest income were calculated annually based upon estimated average fund balances and historic effective return of 0.14% on cash and invested funds, which is consistent with the City’s historical earnings. Projections of all other non-rate revenues were based on FY 2018/19 budgeted revenues. Budgeted revenues FY 2018/19 are depicted in Figure 2 below and listed in detail in Schedule 1. 1 A similar agreement between the City of Sutter Creek and Amador City has expired. 2 The rate revenue in Schedule 1 includes the proposed rate adjustment recommended by this Study, as described in Section 2.2
3 It should be noted that California law (Government Code 66013) requires that Connection Fee revenue be spent “solely for the purposes for which the charges were collected”.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
12 2.1.7 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
The Sewer Utility’s operating and maintenance expenses include all ongoing collection, treatment, disposal, and administrative expenses, payments to ARSA, and debt service payments. Annual operating and maintenance costs for collection and treatment, including ARSA costs, are based on the FY 2018/19 budget and are adjusted for future years based on inflation (see Section 2.1.8). The City has demonstrated foresight and fiscal prudence by already funding its employee benefit liabilities, such as OPEB (Other Post Employment Benefit) and PERS (Public Employment Retirement System).
The City’s current outstanding debt is limited to a single Certificate of Participation (COP), which was issued by the USDA in 1997 for $818 thousand and requires annual payments of approximately $44 thousand through 2037.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
13 Budgeted expense categories for FY 2019/20 are depicted in Figure 2. Budgeted and projected operating and debt expenses are listed in detail in Schedule 2. Capital program expenses are discussed in Section 2.1.10 and detailed in Schedule 3.
Figure 2: FY 2019/20 Budgeted Expense Categories
2.1.8 COST ESCALATION
Annual cost escalation factors for the various types of expenses were developed based upon a review of historical inflation trends, published inflation forecasts, industry experience, and discussions with City staff. During the projection period, the Sewer Utility’s operating and capital expenses are projected to increase gradually at 3.0% per year.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
14 2.1.9 DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE
While it is not clear whether the existing USDA Loan requires the City to maintain a specified debt service coverage ratio (DCR), this financial plan maintains a DCR that exceeds any requirement that the loan may have. Given the fact that the City may need to take out a significant amount of new debt during Phase 2 (to be determined), this financial plan ensures that a DCR of at least 1.50 was maintained throughout the planning period to help enable the City to access favorable borrowing terms in the future. Based on recently published guidance from Fitch Ratings4, utility systems with midrange financial profiles should maintain a DCR greater than 1.50 times annual debt service.
2.1.10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
As discussed in Section 1.5, the City is facing two categories of capital spending: the collection system urgently requires repair and replacement (R&R) projects in order to address years of deferred maintenance and the treatment plant will require the WWTP Project. Planned and estimated future collection system R&R project costs are included in this Phase 1 study, while the WWTP Project costs will be addressed as part of Phase
2. The City is planning for a series of collection system R&R projects over the next ten years and expects to spend approximately $300 thousand (in 2019 dollars) starting in FY 2022/23. As shown in Figure 3, many near-term projects have been specifically identified, while other longer-term projects are still being identified and planned. 4 As published on July 31, 2013.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
15 Figure 3: Current and projected capital spending
The detailed list of repair and replacement projects and associated costs is provided in Schedule 3.
2.1.11 FUTURE BORROWING ASSUMPTIONS
This Phase 1 study does not propose any new debt in order to finance the collection system R&R projects described above because (a) the City would be better served to cash-finance this level of capital spending given the fact that this level of annual spending is expected to be ongoing in the coming decades, and (2) the City may need to issue significant amounts of debt during Phase 2, meaning that the City needs to reserve its capacity to issue debt.
PROPOSED RATE REVENUE INCREASES
All of the above information was entered into a financial planning model to produce a 10-year financial plan that evaluated the sufficiency of current revenues to meet current City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
16 and estimated future financial obligations and determined the level of rate revenue increases necessary in each year of the planning period.
Based upon the previously discussed financial data, assumptions, and reserve targets, this Study proposes a 5-year schedule of rate adjustments as detailed in Table 2.
It should be noted that a typical utility financial plan attempts to spread rate increases over several years rather than “front-load” a large rate increase in the first year.
Because of the lapsed time since the last rate adjustment a single, large initial rate increase is necessary to align revenues with costs following the ten-year period without a rate adjustment and addresses the majority of the Sewer Utility’s existing revenue needs (i.e. all costs except for the anticipated WWTP Project). It also financially positions the Sewer Utility to take on the higher costs associated with the WWTP Project in Phase 2.
The numbers provided in Schedule 4 (cash flow proforma) are summarized graphically in Figure 4, which shows that the financial plan is positioning the City to meet the expected financial demands of Phase 2.
Rate Adjustment
Date
January 1, 2020
July 1, 2021
July 1, 2022
July 1, 2023
July 1, 2024 2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Proposed Rate
Revenue
Increase
35.0%
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Financial Plan
17 Figure 4: Financial Plan Estimates with Recommended Rate Increases To summarize, the initial (January 2020) increase in rate revenue is necessary to cover ongoing O&M expenses, support the needed level of capital investment in the sewer system’s aging collection system infrastructure (see Section 2.1.10), and maintain reserve targets. No rate increase is proposed for FY 2020/21 because July 1 of that fiscal year (the first day of the fiscal year and the City’s preferred day for rate adjustments) falls only 6 months after the initial rate increase. Starting on July 1, 2021 this Study recommends minimal (2% will likely fall below inflation) rate adjustments until the Phase 2 rate plan is completed and supersedes the remainder of the Phase 1 rates.
While the forecast shows the reserves growing beyond the reserve target levels, one of the objectives of this Phase 1 study is to prepare the Sewer Utility for Phase 2 costs. In the event that Phase 2 doesn’t come to pass and if reserves are exceeding the reserve target at that time, the City can elect to defer further rate increases until it is appropriate.
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Proposed Revenue Increases: 35.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% $0
$1
$2
$3
$4 MILLIONSProjected Fund Balance
Reserve Target
$0
$1
$1
$2
$2
$3
$3
FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Total Revenue / Expenses ($M) Non-Rate Revenue Existing Rate Revenue Additional Rate Revenue Operating Expenses Debt Cash Capital Expenses Revenues
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 18 COST-OF-SERVICE & RATE STRUCTURE
A cost-of-service analysis evaluates the cost of providing sewer service and proportionately allocates those costs to customer classes and rate structure components to ensure the proposed rate structure is aligned with the costs of providing sewer service. This is done in order to be equitable among the City’s retail ratepayers and wholesale agencies, and to comply with Proposition 218. This Study employed well-established industry practices as recognized by the WEF and other accepted industry standards. The cost-of-service analysis and rate structure proposed by this Study is designed to:
Fairly and equitably recover costs through sewer rates; Conform to accepted industry practice and legal requirements; and Provide financial stability and recovery of system fixed costs.
The following section presents a detailed description of the cost-of-service and rate structure methodology and the corresponding results.
CUSTOMER STATISTICS
The Sewer Utility serves over eleven hundred sewer accounts within the City, as summarized in Table 3. In addition, the Sewer Utility provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to Amador City and AWA. The volume of wastewater received from the City, Amador City and AWA is presented in Section 3.3.
Accounts Dwellings
Single Family 962 997
Multifamily 46 342
Commercial 135 (na)
Total: 1143 1339
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 19 RATE STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Retail customers are currently charged based on equivalent single-family units (ESFUs).
An ESFU is the basic unit of wastewater utility service and reflects the average volume of flows from residential dwellings, which make up most of the City’s customer base. All residential accounts pay a Sewer Service Charge rate of 1 ESFU per dwelling unit (which includes multifamily dwelling units and accessory dwelling units (ADUs)). Commercial customers are assigned an ESFU value (recalculated biennially) based on the respective account’s average daily winter water usage (per AWA water usage records) divided by 213 gallons. Commercial accounts are assigned a minimum value of one (1) ESFU.
The current structure has a fixed rate for all residential accounts, meaning that the Sewer Service Charge for those customers remains the same regardless of how much water they use, or sewer flow generated. Residential customers make up the vast majority of the City’s retail customers (see Section 3.1), which means that the City’s retail rate revenue is very stable. Water usage only enters into the calculation of commercial customer rates and wholesale customer cost sharing. It is reasonable for the City to continue to charge fixed Service Charges to its customers since the Sewer Utility’s costs change very little as a result of water usage fluctuations. Most of the Sewer Utility’s costs, such as personnel costs, maintenance, administration, debt service, and capital expenses, are incurred regardless of how much sewer flow is produced by customers.
The current rate structure does not charge a higher rate to commercial accounts that may have higher “strength” (as commonly measured by biochemical oxygen demand and/or suspended solids). This decision is based on the fact that the strength of sewage is not currently considered to materially drive costs at the WWTP and the fact that the service area has few higher strength users. While the Martell Area has a higher concentration of industry, the City has been able to work collaboratively with AWA and its customers to mitigate against higher strength sewage entering the sewer system.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 20 Based on conversations with City staff and the Sewer Committee, this Study recommends retaining the existing rate structure with a couple modifications. The following sub-sections address specific elements of the rate structure and discuss the reasoning for retaining the existing methodology or proposing a modification.
3.2.1 WINTER WATER USAGE AS ESTIMATOR OF SEWER FLOW
As previously discussed, the ESFU value assigned to commercial accounts is recalculated biennially based on each account’s respective average winter-time water usage. The purpose of considering only winter-time water usage is to exclude as much outdoor water usage as possible. This is an industry-standard approach for estimating sewer flows. Historically the City has used water usage data from November through April. This Study recommends only looking at the months of January, February and March, which were found to generally be the lowest months of water usage.
In order to be consistent with the above recommendation, this Study also analyzed the average water usage for residential accounts during the winter months of January, February, and March. We found that the average water usage per residential dwelling unit during those months is 131 gallons per day (gpd). As such, this Study recommends changing the ESFU definition to 131 gpd based on the logic that winter usage data used for the commercial accounts should be synchronized with the winter usage data used to establish the benchmark.
It should be noted that this change will result in more ESFUs being assigned to commercial accounts. As a consequence, the rate increases being proposed by this Study will be more impactful on commercial customers than on residential customers.
3.2.2 VACANCY CHARGE
The City currently allows accounts that have been vacant for at least 6 months to request a “Standby Charge” in place of the Sewer Service Charge, which is currently equal to 50% of one ESFU. This Study recommends that the nomenclature be changed to “Vacancy Charge” (since “Standby Charge” carries a specific legal connotation in City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 21 Proposition 218 which doesn’t apply to this scenario) and the charge should be calculated to reflect the reduction in costs to the Sewer Utility as a result of wastewater not being discharged by an account. In reviewing the FY 2019/20 budget, we found that 68% of operating budget is fixed (salaries, professional services, debt service, insurance, etc.) while 32% of the operating budget is variable (i.e. the reduction in wastewater flow reduces costs for the Sewer Utility). The variable costs were primarily the ARSA payment (which is calculated based on flow), as well as electricity (primarily pumping) and chemicals for treatment. Capital costs were not considered since capital spending changes considerably from one year to the next.
As such, this Study recommends that the Vacancy Charge be set to 68% of the Sewer Service Charge for one ESFU.
WHOLESALE COST ALLOCATION
The Sewer Utility provides wholesale wastewater treatment services to Amador City and AWA in the Martell & Ridge Road areas. Sutter Creek uses the terms of its October 31, 2000 agreement with Amador County (which was superseded by AWA) as the basis for how it allocates operating and capital costs to both the AWA and Amador City5. The agreement requires that the amount paid for wholesale treatment and disposal services be derived by allocating costs based on the relative flow of wastewater contributed by the County. Furthermore, the charges include reasonable costs for administration, engineering, and legal expenses incurred by City.
In recognition of the 2000 agreement between the City and the County, and consistent with applicable law in California, this Study proposes to continue to allocate costs based on the methodology that has historically been used by the City. The method 5 A similar agreement between the City of Sutter Creek and Amador City has expired.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 22 consists of grouping costs into categories (as summarized in Table 5) and allocating those costs to the three parties based on one of the following allocation bases. 1) Wastewater Flows – as metered at the Sutter Creek satellite pump station. 2) Assigned Capacity: Based on the original (and subsequently amended) operating agreements between Sutter Creek and Amador City / AWA (respectively).
3) Collection System Utilization – Based on a 2002 Revenue Programs as cited by the 2008 rate study, which measured the length of pipeline used to convey sewage to the City’s WWTP.
4) Sutter Creek Only … for costs or revenue (such as for miscellaneous fees and septic service fees) that are allocated only to Sutter Creek 5) Indirect method… allocates costs based on the proportion of all other costs allocated to each party until that point.
The percentages of the above allocation bases are summarized in Table 4.
Total City of Sutter Amador Water
Amador
City
Annual Wastewater Flows (Tgals) 138,438 110,733 23,432 4,273
80.0% 16.9% 3.1%
Assigned Capacity (gpd) 480,000 325,500 115,500 39,000
67.81% 24.06% 8.13%
Collection System Utilization 94.80% 4.12% 1.08%
Sutter Creek Only 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Indirect Allocation 87.06% 10.85% 2.09%
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 23 In a modest departure from the City’s current methodology, this Study recommends using the indirect allocation basis for allocating contributions (or drawdown) from reserves. This is appropriate because it smooths cost volatility that inherently occurs when passing from a year that builds the reserves to a year that draws down on reserves (or vice versa).
The Revenue Requirements shown on Row 14 of Table 5 does not match the projected rate revenue in Rows 2 through 8 of Schedule 4 (financial plan Cash Flow Proforma), although intuitively it may seem as though it should. This occurs because the rate increases and cost allocation adjustments in the first year (FY 2019/20, as referred to as the “Test Year”) of this Study will only be effective for 6-month of the fiscal year. So, while the above cost allocations and rate calculations use a full year of cost and revenue Total
City of
Sutter Creek
Amador
Water
Amador
City
Budget Categories
Allocation Basis
1 Treatment Operations $478,000 $382,400 $80,900 $14,800 Wastewater Flows 2 Effluent Operations $143,000 $114,400 $24,200 $4,400 Wastewater Flows 3 Sutter Creek's ARSA O&M $403,000 $403,000 $0 $0 Sutter Creek Only 4 WWTP Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 Assigned Capacity
5 WWTP Capital (cash) $0 $0 $0 $0 Assigned Capacity
6 Collection Operations $328,000 $310,900 $13,500 $3,500 Collection System Utilization 7 Collection Debt Service $44,000 $41,700 $1,800 $500 Collection System Utilization 8 Collection System Capital (cash) $195,000 $184,900 $8,000 $2,100 Collection System Utilization 9 Administrative Costs $282,000 $225,600 $47,700 $8,700 Wastewater Flows 10 Engineering Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 Assigned Capacity
11 Interest Earnings ($2,000) -$1,400 -$500 -$200 Assigned Capacity 12 Other Non-Rate Revenue ($253,000) -$253,000 $0 $0 Sutter Creek Only 13 Contributions to (from) reserves $412,000 $358,700 $44,700 $8,600 Indirect 14 Revenue Requirement: $2,030,000 $1,767,200 $220,300 $42,400
87.1% 10.9% 2.1%
Treatment Costs
Collection Costs
General and Administrative Costs
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 24 data, the financial plan must account for the fact that the rate increases (and changes to cost allocations to Amador City and AWA), will only be effective for part of FY 2019/20.
After allocating the wholesale costs to Amador City and AWA in the Test Year, in the subsequent years the financial plan for this Study assumes that the wholesale cost allocations will increase proportionately with the annual rate adjustments. While this is a reasonable estimate for purposes of this Study, in reality the wholesale cost allocations will be calculated every year based on actual cost and reserve contributions.
CALCULATION OF THE SEWER SERVICE CHARGES
The following describes the calculation of ESFUs and the Sewer Utility’s revenue requirement in the Test Year, which forms the basis for the recommended Sewer Service Charges. These calculations culminate in a specific 5-year rate schedule for implementation starting on January 1, 2020.
3.4.1 SUMMARY OF EQUIVALENT SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS
As explained in Section 3.2.1, this Study recommends the use of 131 gpd as the benchmark for average winter water use by single family homes. Table 6 summarizes the number of ESFUs in Sutter Creek based on residential dwelling units and water usage by commercial accounts during January, February and March of 2018.
3.4.2 CALCULATION OF SEWER SERVICE CHARGE
The revenue requirement for retail accounts within Sutter Creek for the Test Year rates as shown in Row 14 of Table 5 is $1,767,200. This value divided by the total number of ESFUs (2,031) yields a Sewer Service Charge of $72.49.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Cost of Service and Proposed Rates 25 The following demonstrates how this rate will meet the City’s revenue requirements during the Test Year. The current Sewer Service Charge is budgeted to generate $1.32 million during FY 2019/20 (see Row 2 of Schedule 4). The City will collect rate revenue at these budgeted levels for 6 months, thus generating $661 thousand in revenue (half of $1.32 million). During the second half of the fiscal year (after the adoption of the new rates) the City will collect $883 thousand ($72.49 x 2,031 ESFUs x 6 months). Together these values add up to meet the retail revenue requirement of $1.54 million for FY 2019/20 as shown in Rows 2 and 3 of Schedule 4.
3.4.3 PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE
Following the Test Year, the Sewer Service Charge is simply increased by the rate adjustments proposed in Table 2 beginning in July 2021. The proposed rate schedules for the next 5 years is summarized in Table 7. This schedule does not include any costs for the anticipated WWTP Project or related financing. Those costs will need to be considered in the Phase 2 financial plan and a subsequent 5-year rate schedule.
It should be noted that the reason that the ESFU rate only increases by 19.7%, while rate revenues will increase by 35% (see Table 2 and the Proforma in Schedule 4), is because of the increase in ESFUs being assigned to Commercial customers (see Section 3.2.1).
Under the current rate structure there are 494 ESFUs assigned to Commercial customers, while the changes proposed by this Study results in 692 Commercial ESFUs (an increase of 40%). This 11% increase in the overall number of ESFUs results in a lower increase to the actual Sewer Service Charge rate.
Current
Jan. 1,
2020
July 1,
2021
July 1,
2022
July 1,
2023
July 1,
2024
ESFU Rate: $60.57 $72.49 $73.94 $75.42 $76.93 $78.47
ESFU Rate Increase: (na) 19.7% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Vacancy Rate: $30.28 $49.30 $50.28 $51.29 $52.31 $53.36 City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Conclusion
26 CONCLUSION
This Study used methodologies that are aligned with industry standard practices for rate setting as promulgated by WEF, AWWA and all applicable laws, including California’s Proposition 218. The proposed annual adjustments to the rates will allow the City to continue to provide reliable sewer service to customers while meeting the state’s mandates.
The Sewer Service Charges will need to be adopted in accordance with Proposition 218, which will require a detailed notice describing the proposed rates to be mailed to each affected property owner or customer at least 45 days prior to conducting a public hearing to adopt the rates.
The City anticipates significant capital costs in the near future as a result of a mandatory project to upgrade or replace the existing wastewater treatment plant with a tertiary plant (WWTP Project). The timing and the magnitude of those costs, however, are still under development. As it stands, even without the costs of the WWTP Project, the Sewer Utility requires rate revenue increases in order to pay for operating costs and to fund back-logged repair and replacement (R&R) capital projects for the sewer collection system. The Phase 1 sewer rate plan presented in this report addresses these needs.
As such, this Study proposes to approach the sewer rate plan in two phases. A Phase 2 rate plan with a financial plan that includes the cost of the WWTP Project and associated financing will be developed in a second phase. The Phase 2 rate plan is expected to supersede the Phase 1 rate plan within the next year.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
1 SCHEDULES
_____________________________________________________
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
Schedule 1
Budgeted and Projected Cash Inflows Schedule 1
FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 1 Growth in Sewer Accounts 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 0.35% 2 Proposed Sewer Rate Increase (na) 35.0% 0.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% Rate Revenue
3 Sewer Service Charge $1,456,000 $1,503,000 $2,030,000 $2,036,000 $2,082,000 $2,129,000 $2,178,000 $2,229,000 $2,257,000 $2,286,000 $2,315,000 4 Increase due to growth $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 5 Increase due to new rate adjustments $263,000 $0 $40,000 $41,000 $43,000 $44,000 $21,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000 6 Total Rate Revenue $1,456,000 $1,766,000 $2,036,000 $2,082,000 $2,129,000 $2,178,000 $2,229,000 $2,257,000 $2,286,000 $2,315,000 $2,344,000 Other Revenue:
7 ARSA Reimbursement $156,000 $193,000 $196,000 $200,000 $154,000 $158,000 $162,000 $167,000 $171,000 $176,000 $181,000 8 Septic Service Fees $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 9 Miscellaneous Fees $20,000 $22,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $23,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 $24,000 11 Interest Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
12 Connection Fees ** $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 $27,000 13 Total Other Revenue $216,000 $255,000 $258,000 $263,000 $217,000 $221,000 $225,000 $231,000 $235,000 $240,000 $245,000 14 TOTAL REVENUE $1,672,000 $2,021,000 $2,294,000 $2,345,000 $2,346,000 $2,399,000 $2,454,000 $2,488,000 $2,521,000 $2,555,000 $2,589,000 * Rate increase in FY 2019/20 effective on January 1, therefore only active for half of the fiscal year ** Connection Fee revenue not included in totals since the revenue is restricted for growth projects and not used as part of this financial plan *
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
Schedule 2
Budgeted and Projected Cash Outflows (1 of 2) Schedule 2 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 Treatment Operating Costs
1 Salaries $93,500 $96,300 $99,200 $102,100 $105,200 $108,400 $111,600 $115,000 $118,400 $122,000 $125,600 2 Benefits $89,200 $91,900 $94,700 $97,500 $100,400 $103,500 $106,600 $109,800 $113,100 $116,400 $119,900 3 Supplies $21,000 $21,600 $22,300 $22,900 $23,600 $24,300 $25,100 $25,800 $26,600 $27,400 $28,200 4 Utilities & Fuel $55,500 $57,200 $58,900 $60,600 $62,500 $64,300 $66,300 $68,300 $70,300 $72,400 $74,600 5 Minor Capital $30,000 $30,900 $31,800 $32,800 $33,800 $34,800 $35,800 $36,900 $38,000 $39,100 $40,300 6 Chemicals $60,000 $61,800 $63,700 $65,600 $67,500 $69,600 $71,600 $73,800 $76,000 $78,300 $80,600 7 Professional Services $22,200 $22,900 $23,600 $24,300 $25,000 $25,700 $26,500 $27,300 $28,100 $29,000 $29,800 8 Services $69,500 $71,600 $73,700 $75,900 $78,200 $80,600 $83,000 $85,500 $88,000 $90,700 $93,400 9 Miscellaneous $22,800 $23,500 $24,200 $24,900 $25,700 $26,400 $27,200 $28,000 $28,900 $29,700 $30,600 10 Treatment Operating Costs Subtotals $463,700 $477,700 $492,100 $506,600 $521,900 $537,600 $553,700 $570,400 $587,400 $605,000 $623,000 Collection Operating Costs
11 Salaries $95,800 $98,700 $101,700 $104,700 $107,800 $111,100 $114,400 $117,800 $121,400 $125,000 $128,800 12 Benefits $76,200 $78,500 $80,900 $83,300 $85,800 $88,400 $91,000 $93,800 $96,600 $99,500 $102,500 13 Supplies $2,500 $2,600 $2,700 $2,700 $2,800 $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 14 Utilities & Fuel $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $300 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 15 Minor Capital $107,000 $110,200 $113,500 $116,900 $120,400 $124,000 $127,800 $131,600 $135,500 $139,600 $143,800 16 Professional Services $5,000 $5,200 $5,300 $5,500 $5,600 $5,800 $6,000 $6,100 $6,300 $6,500 $6,700 17 Transfer $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 18 Services $10,700 $11,000 $11,400 $11,700 $12,000 $12,400 $12,800 $13,200 $13,600 $14,000 $14,400 19 Miscellaneous $4,100 $4,200 $4,300 $4,500 $4,600 $4,700 $4,900 $5,000 $5,200 $5,300 $5,500 20 Collection Operating Costs Subtotals $318,800 $327,900 $337,300 $346,800 $356,500 $366,800 $377,500 $388,200 $399,400 $410,800 $422,700 City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
Schedule 2
Budgeted and Projected Cash Outflows (2 of 2) Schedule 2 FY 2018/19 FY 2019/20 FY 2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23 FY 2023/24 FY 2024/25 FY 2025/26 FY 2026/27 FY 2027/28 FY 2028/29 Effluent Costs
21 Salaries $45,400 $46,800 $48,200 $49,600 $51,100 $52,600 $54,200 $55,900 $57,500 $59,300 $61,000 22 Benefits $76,200 $78,500 $80,900 $83,300 $85,800 $88,400 $91,000 $93,800 $96,600 $99,500 $102,500 23 Transfer $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 24 ARSA $391,700 $403,400 $415,500 $428,000 $440,800 $454,100 $467,700 $481,700 $496,200 $511,000 $526,400 25 Effluent Costs Subtotals $530,500 $545,900 $561,800 $578,100 $594,900 $612,300 $630,100 $648,600 $667,500 $687,000 $707,100 Administrative Costs
26 Salaries $111,200 $114,500 $117,900 $121,500 $125,100 $128,900 $132,700 $136,700 $140,800 $145,000 $149,400 27 Benefits $59,900 $61,700 $63,600 $65,500 $67,500 $69,500 $71,600 $73,700 $75,900 $78,200 $80,600 28 Supplies $8,000 $8,300 $8,500 $8,800 $9,000 $9,300 $9,600 $9,900 $10,200 $10,500 $10,800 29 Utilities & Fuel $2,900 $3,000 $3,100 $3,200 $3,300 $3,400 $3,500 $3,600 $3,700 $3,800 $3,900 30 Minor Capital $400 $400 $400 $400 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 31 Professional Services $19,200 $19,800 $20,400 $21,000 $21,600 $22,300 $22,900 $23,600 $24,300 $25,100 $25,800 32 Transfer $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 $17,200 33 Services $19,600 $20,200 $20,800 $21,400 $22,100 $22,700 $23,400 $24,100 $24,800 $25,600 $26,300 34 Insurance $34,700 $35,700 $36,800 $37,900 $39,000 $40,200 $41,400 $42,700 $43,900 $45,300 $46,600 35 Miscellaneous $700 $700 $700 $800 $800 $800 $800 $900 $900 $900 $900 36 Administrative Costs Subtotals $273,800 $281,500 $289,400 $297,700 $306,100 $314,800 $323,600 $332,900 $342,200 $352,100 $362,000 37 Total Operating Expenses $1,586,800 $1,633,000 $1,680,600 $1,729,200 $1,779,400 $1,831,500 $1,884,900 $1,940,100 $1,996,500 $2,054,900 $2,114,800 City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
Schedule 3
Phase 1 Capital Spending Plan * Schedule 3
FY
2019/20
FY
2020/21
FY
2021/22
FY
2022/23
FY
2023/24
FY
2024/25
FY
2025/26
FY
2026/27
FY
2027/28
FY
2028/29
1 Sewer Main R&R at Patricia Lane/Sutter Oaks - Ph. 1 $114,000 $114,000 $114,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2 Sewer Main R&R at Patricia Lane/Sutter Oaks - Ph. 2 $0 $0 $0 $58,000 $58,000 $58,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Sewer Main R&R at Patricia Lane/Sutter Oaks - Ph. 3 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $66,000 $66,000 $66,000 $0 4 Sewer Main Replacement at Elm St. $0 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5 Sewer Main Replacement at Pinotti Property $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $57,000 $57,000 $0 $0 $0 6 Manhole Lining $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 9 Future planned R&R projects $0 $0 $0 $202,000 $186,000 $186,000 $177,000 $234,000 $234,000 $300,000 10 Total Phase 1 Capital Expenses $189,000 $229,000 $229,000 $300,000 $301,000 $301,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 * Costs in this table are expressed in current dollars, while financial plan (including the Proforma in Schedule 4, show the values after inflation.
City of Sutter Creek
2019 Sewer Rate Study Schedules
Schedule 4
Cash Flow Proforma Schedule 4
Budget Estimated Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast Forecast FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 1 Rate Revenue Increases (na) 35.00% 0.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% Rate Revenue (see Schedule 1) 2 Sewer Service Charge Revenue $1,271,000 $1,322,000 $1,767,000 $1,773,000 $1,814,000 $1,856,000 $1,899,000 $1,944,000 $1,970,000 $1,997,000 $2,024,000 $2,051,000 3 Increase due to Sutter Creek rate adjustments $226,000 $0 $35,000 $36,000 $37,000 $38,000 $19,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $21,000 4 Change due to growth & use $0 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 $7,000 5 Amador City Cost Allocation $29,000 $30,000 $42,000 $42,000 $43,000 $44,000 $45,000 $46,000 $46,000 $46,000 $46,000 $46,000 6 Increase to cost allocation $6,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7 Amador Water Agency Cost Allocation $156,000 $151,000 $220,000 $220,000 $224,000 $228,000 $233,000 $238,000 $240,000 $242,000 $244,000 $246,000 8 Increase to cost allocation $34,000 $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 Non-Rate Revenues (see Schedule 1)
9 ARSA Reimburs. $156,000 $193,000 $196,000 $200,000 $154,000 $158,000 $162,000 $167,000 $171,000 $176,000 $181,000 $186,000 10 Septic Fees $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 11 Miscellaneous Fees $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 12 Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
13 Interest Income $0 $2,000 $2,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 14 Connection Fee Revenue (Fund 11 & 12) $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 $26,500 15 Total Fund 10 Revenue (Excl. Conn. Fees) $1,672,000 $2,024,000 $2,294,000 $2,345,000 $2,346,000 $2,400,000 $2,455,000 $2,488,000 $2,521,000 $2,555,000 $2,589,000 $2,624,000 #REF!
O&M Costs
16 Total Operating Expenses (see Shedule 2) $1,587,000 $1,633,000 $1,680,000 $1,729,000 $1,780,000 $1,831,000 $1,885,000 $1,940,000 $1,996,000 $2,055,000 $2,115,000 $2,177,000 Capital Costs
17 Total Capital Spending (see Schedule 3) $0 $195,000 $243,000 $250,000 $338,000 $348,000 $358,000 $369,000 $380,000 $391,000 $403,000 $415,000 18 Existing Debt Service $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $44,000 $45,000 $44,000 $44,000 19 Cash Funded Capital Projects $0 $195,000 $243,000 $250,000 $338,000 $348,000 $358,000 $369,000 $380,000 $391,000 $403,000 $415,000 20 Grant-Funded Capital Projects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 21 New Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 22 Total Capital Expenses $44,000 $239,000 $287,000 $294,000 $382,000 $392,000 $402,000 $413,000 $424,000 $436,000 $447,000 $459,000 23 Total Revenue Requirement $1,631,000 $1,872,000 $1,968,000 $2,024,000 $2,162,000 $2,224,000 $2,287,000 $2,353,000 $2,420,000 $2,491,000 $2,562,000 $2,635,967 24 Beginning Year Balance $1,443,000 $1,485,000 $1,637,000 $1,963,000 $2,285,000 $2,469,000 $2,645,000 $2,813,000 $2,948,000 $3,048,000 $3,113,000 $3,140,000 25 Surplus/(Shortfall) $41,000 $152,000 $327,000 $321,000 $184,000 $176,000 $168,000 $135,000 $101,000 $65,000 $27,000 ($12,000) 26 End of Year Balance (Fund 10) $1,485,000 $1,637,000 $1,963,000 $2,285,000 $2,469,000 $2,645,000 $2,813,000 $2,948,000 $3,048,000 $3,113,000 $3,140,000 $3,128,000 27 Minimum Reserve Target $1,408,000 $1,438,000 $1,438,000 $1,481,000 $1,525,000 $1,570,000 $1,617,000 $1,665,000 $1,715,000 $1,766,000 $1,818,000 $1,873,000 28 Available Cash $77,000 $199,000 $525,000 $804,000 $944,000 $1,075,000 $1,196,000 $1,283,000 $1,333,000 $1,347,000 $1,322,000 $1,254,552 Debt Coverage Calculations
29 Total Revenue Available for Debt Service $112,000 $418,000 $641,000 $642,000 $593,000 $595,000 $597,000 $574,000 $551,000 $527,000 $501,000 $474,000 30 Debt Coverage Ratio 2.54 9.46 14.47 14.49 13.38 13.42 13.49 13.02 12.54 11.77 11.26 10.73 2880 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, SUITE 300 • SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95833 • P. 916.565.4888 • F. 916.565.4880 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client\CA\Sutter Creek\12029A60\Meetings\Meetings-External\Minutes PAGE 1 of 4
MEETING MINUTES
WWTP REPLACEMENT PROJECT
City of Sutter Creek
Purpose: Project Check-In/Update with Permitting and Funding Group Meeting Date: January 21, 2021
Meeting Location: MS Teams
Prepared By: Beverly Hann
Attendees: Client: Carollo: SWRCB:
Amy Gedney
Grant Reynolds
Beverly Hann
Eli Weintraub
Christina Romano
Larry Parlin
Elvira Reyes (DFA)
Jim Marshall (NPDES)
James Garcia (DFA)
Josh Palmer (NPDES)
Armando Martinez (DFA)
Distribution: Attendees
Discussion:
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this conference. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us.
Background
Amy and Larry provided some background on the project, as a reminder for the meeting attendees.
Key Project Drivers – The City of Ione issued a termination of an existing agreement to accept excess flow from the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA) distribution system, effective in July 2022, which restricts the overall capacity of the ARSA system and requires the City of Sutter Creek (City) to pursue additional avenues for effluent discharge. Additionally, condition evaluations of the City’s existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and of the ARSA system indicate that the WWTP and ARSA system as a whole require improvements for long-term reliability.
The City has been investigating options related to WWTP upgrades, alternate effluent discharge, regionalization with neighboring cities, etc., and has recently secured a planning grant from the State to complete a final evaluation of alternatives for long-term treatment and disposal of the City’s municipal flow.
Carollo has been contracted by the City to assist in an Owner’s Advisor (OA) role leading many of the planning activities funded by the planning grant (see below).
The City has had ongoing discussions with the City of Ione, the City of Jackson, and the California Department of Corrections (CDCR) regarding regionalization, ARSA system improvement, shared recycle water projects, etc. Amy mentioned that the City has been frustrated with ultimately non-productive discussions with these agencies over the years, that each has explored separate facility upgrades that would negate any potential benefit from a shared project, and that the City is committed to moving forward with Issue Date: 1-29-2021
Project No.: 12029A.60
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 2 of 4
independent upgrades as a result. She also mentioned that the City doesn't want to end up in a position where they could be forced to provide water supply to the City of Ione.
Planning
Planning Phase Funding Requirements: The requirements of the planning grant were summarized for all meeting attendees. These include the development of a Project Report, contractor selection for final design and construction of facility improvements, completion of a rate study, submittal of a funding application for CWSRF money and report of waste discharge (ROWD) for permit application, and completion of environmental (CEQA) efforts necessary for the CWSRF funding application.
Carollo is contracted to assist the City with all except the environmental work (Ascent Environmental is contracted for this work) and the rate study work (City will contract with the rate consultant previously used).
Alternatives Evaluation
Review Project Alternatives: Per the planning grant agreement, Carollo is working with the City to evaluate the following project alternatives:
• Secondary treatment with discharge to ARSA
• Regionalization with the City of Jackson
• Regionalization with the City of Ione
• Tertiary treatment at the existing site with year-round discharge • Tertiary treatment at the existing site with seasonal discharge (wet season to Sutter Creek and dry season to ARSA)
• Tertiary treatment at the existing site with discharge to Sutter Creek based on effluent flow pacing in response to measured creek flows (20:1 minimum for creek: effluent flows) Project Update
Preliminary results of the alternatives analysis are pointing towards tertiary treatment upgrades at the existing site with year-round discharge to Sutter Creek.
New Findings/Limitations
There has been ongoing work to finalize the design criteria for facility improvements, with note that design flow values have been particularly challenging to nail down due to high inflow and infiltration (I/I). Large winter storm events result in a peaking factor (PF) approaching 10.
Other constraints/limitations:
• The site is space constrained; not a lot of room to build new treatment systems while maintaining operation through construction.
• The geology and topography on-site adds additional challenge, as well as the Caltrans easements for the elevated highway that runs above a portion of the site.
Based on Carollo’s initial layout efforts, it appears that a WWTP sized to handle average flows will fit, but not one sized for the peak flow condition. This means that storage/flow equalization will be needed to handle the peak flows.
• There is not adequate space for flow equalization/storage within the existing WWTP area to provide final needed capacity.
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 3 of 4
Permitting Relief?
Assuming that the option to construct a new tertiary plant at the existing site with year-round discharge to Sutter Creek is the most feasible option, the City will pursue a blending waiver for the elevated peak flows coming into the facility during large storm events. This would reduce the size of the equalization storage required and avoid sunk costs for storage that may not be needed long-term (Larry noted that the City has been diligently working through smoke testing and lining/repairing the collection system for many years).
Related discussion:
• Jim Marshall asked if the City is looking for a bypass of the tertiary treatment, noting that it is unlikely that this would be included in a new permit. He also noted that the high I/I could be an issue for the City’s SRF funding request.
• Larry noted that many Bay Area dischargers have blending waivers, mentioning that previous discussions also included a bypass allowance for large thunderstorms. • Jim said that a blending waiver may be a possibility, but is unlikely since it wouldn’t meet best practicable technology requirements.
• Larry asked if economics would be part of the final decision. • Jim agreed that economics would be considered, and indicated that he would be willing to look into the option in more detail (reviewing related regulations).
Jim asked if there were other locations for the treatment plant and/or flow storage. Eli responded that the new treatment facilities will likely fit on-site and that the existing site is the most appropriate location for these facilities. Eli also reiterated that the storage facilities will not fit on the existing site.
Additional discussion:
• DFA wants to see the viability of other options like reclamation and regionalization evaluated within the planning phase.
• Beverly noted that we are looking at reclamation as part of the continued use of the ARSA system; but it's not the City's preference especially because it keeps them tied to CDCR and will require costly improvements to the ARSA system.
• Jim also wants to see reclamation and regionalization discussed within the ROWD.
Construction Funding
Delivery of the final project is still anticipated to be via a design-build (DB) process, due to schedule requirements and the challenging site constraints.
Beverly asked if DFA has a current projection for funding availability for this type of project? As a severely disadvantaged (and small) community, the City will seek maximum grant funding to increase the feasibility of accomplishing the needed facility improvements.
James Garcia responded that the typical max grant for a project like this is $6M (minus the planning funding amount that is already contracted [$500K]). If the City moves forward with a regionalized project, this maximum amount could increase to $8M (depending on funding availability). The Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) gets approximately $55M to $60M for grant funding each fiscal year (July to June); and that funding is absorbed very quickly. To obtain funding, the City will need to have to have a discharge permit in place (or at least be working on one via submittal of a ROWD).
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 4 of 4
NPDES Permit
Carollo expects that the ROWD will be drafted for submittal within the next four months. Sampling (influent, effluent, and creek) has been completed, data has been compiled, and a preliminary reasonable potential analysis (RPA) has been completed.
Beverly shared a few initial results from the RPA, noting a few constituents that caught our eye (various metals, bis-2[ethylhexyl phthalate, and pentachlorophenol). The Carollo team will consider all as new treatment facilities are evaluated, but a few may prove problematic and (as such) the City would benefit from dilution credits for long-term compliance.
Jim said that the City will need to complete a mixing zone analysis if they wish to pursue dilution credits. This approach could become problematic since Sutter Creek doesn't have flow year-round.
Beverly mentioned that a stream bioassessment is required by planning grant, and asked if this is something that could be delayed until after the permit is adopted (as a deliverable). Jim responded that the SWRCB is interested in establishing a baseline for the discharge. As such, this should be conducted as part of the permit adoption process, but can be submitted separately from the ROWD.
Schedule
A modified schedule to the requirements in the planning grant agreement was submitted by the City in August 2020, which included the delayed submittal of the Draft Project Report until January (due to the delayed receipt of the planning agreement). Progress on the report has been delayed due to additional effort necessary to properly assess the facility design flow criteria, and new projections are as follows: Draft Project Report (March 2021) and Final Project Report (May 2021).
Elvira mentioned that the City should include schedule updates in the quarterly reports (she sent a template after the meeting). She noted that work cannot surpass the final disbursement date listed in the agreement (September 2023).
James mentioned that since recycled water funding was used for this grant, reclamation alternatives do need to be considered (per earlier discussion). He understands that reclamation/recycling can sometimes be an expensive alternative, but that the City does need to address possible options in the Project Report.
Elvira also reiterated that the Project Report should include an explanation of observed I/I, including how the City intends to address I/I in the future.
Action Items:
1. Review regulations for blending waivers (all).
2. Include a discussion summarizing possible reclamation/recycling options in the Project Report and the ROWD (Carollo).
3. Include an I/I discussion in the Project Report (Carollo).
4. Send Quarterly Report template (Elvira) – COMPLETE.
5. Submit updated schedule details with the City’s Quarterly Report (City/Carollo). 2880 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, SUITE 300 • SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95833 • P. 916.565.4888 • F. 916.565.4880
PAGE 1 of 2
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
SUTTER CREEK WWTP PROJECT
City of Sutter Creek
To: Amy Gedney, City Manager
Date: February 1, 2021 Project No.: 12029A.60
Subject: Sutter Creek Wastewater Flow Model Re-Calibration Carollo submitted a Project Memorandum on January 7th, 2021 that summarized the modeling performed to establish peak flow design criteria for use in the Project Report. Subsequently, the City asked Carollo to rerun the model excluding 2017 storm data. A summary of the results of the updated model are described below.
I&I Model Re-Calibration
Carollo re-calibrated the I&I model to exclude information from storms in 2017. The updated model only included rainfall and flow data from 2018 and 2019 storm events.
In the updated model, the simulated 10-year 24-hour storm event resulted in a peak-hour flow of 4.4 million gallons per day (mgd) and a peak day flow of 3.0 mgd. The same simulated storm in the original model resulted in peak-hour flow of 5.0 mgd with associated peak-day flow of 3.3 mgd. Predicted flows for these simulated storm events are shown below in Figures 1 and 2 below.
Figure 1. Predicted 10-Year Storm Including 2017 Data
0 0.5
1 1.5
0 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91
Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Hour
Estimated Peak Weather Flow Hydrographs
(10-Year, 24-Hour Event, 8" of Rain)
Rainfall, 10Yr, 24Hr SCS
Rainfall, 10Yr, 24Hr (Feb-17 Distribution)
PROJECT MEMORANDUM
PAGE 2 of 2
Figure 2. Predicted 10-Year Storm Excluding 2017 Data
Additional Observations
It is important to note the following:
• The 2017 storm flow data was collected when there was an open manhole that the City believes was contributing additional flow into the system. However, the flow was not measured and cannot be verified. Therefore, it is estimated that the original modeling that included the 2017 data provides an upper boundary for the design flow conditions.
• The 2018 and 2019 storms occurred when the soil was less saturated and therefore, do not represent the impact of a large storm during fully saturated soil conditions. In other words, I/I during the 2018 and 2019 storms is estimated to be lower than if a 10 yr/24 hr storm occurred during a fully saturated condition. Therefore, the flows observed in 2018 and 2019 are estimated to be the lower boundary for design flow conditions.
Conclusion
Based on the modeling performed, Carollo estimates the peak-day flow to be between 3.0 mgd and 3.3 mgd and the peak-hour flow to be between 4.4 mgd and 5.0 mgd. Because the impacts of the open manhole during the 2017 storm cannot be verified and I/I during the 2018 and 2019 storms is believed to be less than if the soil were saturated, we recommend that an average of the two model runs be used as the design criteria for the Project Report as follows:
• Peak Day Flow: 3.15 mgd
• Peak Hour Flow: 4.7 mgd
0 0.5
1 1.5
0 2
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 49 55 61 67 73 79 85 91
Rainfall (in/hr)
Flow (mgd)
Hour
Estimated Peak Weather Flow Hydrographs
(10-Year, 24-Hour Event, 8" of Rain)
Rainfall, 10Yr, 24Hr SCS
Rainfall, 10Yr, 24Hr (Feb-17 Distribution)
Filename.ppt/1
Project Alternatives Meeting
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
S u t t e r C r e e k C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r / / F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 1 Filename.ppt/2
// Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Design Criteria
3. Funding Agreement Alternatives
4. Project Funding Cost Analysis and Recommendation
5. Next Steps and Action Items
2 Filename.ppt/3
Introductions
Filename.ppt/4
Design Criteria
Filename.ppt/5
// Design Criteria Discussion
• Current WWTP
Permitted capacity – 0.48 mgd
Master Plan maximum
treatment capacity – 0.96 mgd
• Equalization Storage
1.1 MG
5 Filename.ppt/6
// Design Criteria Discussion
6 Current Future
Average dry weather flow 0.33 mgd 0.58 mgd
Max month average daily flow 0.66 mgd 1.17 mgd
Peak day flow 3.15 mgd 3.5 mgd
Peak hour flow 4.7 mgd 5.8 mgd
Filename.ppt/7
// Design Criteria Discussion
7 • Regional Board will use the average dry weather flow as a starting point to establish the permitted capacity of the new treatment facility Current permitted capacity – 0.48 mgd
Current ADWF – 0.33 mgd
New plant permitted capacity – to be determined by Regional Board • Proposed Design Criteria:
Max month average daily flow = treatment plant capacity of 0.66 mgd Equalization storage: 10-yr/24-hr storm – 3.9 MG
Filename.ppt/8
Funding Agreement Alternatives
Filename.ppt/9
// Alternative 1.1.1
• New Secondary Treatment Plant
Replace current treatment equipment
Upgraded secondary treatment facilities −Influent pump station −Headworks −4-MG equalization tank −Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) −Chlorine contact basin Continuous year-round ARSA discharge
9 Aero-Mod Secondary Treatment System
Filename.ppt/10
// Alternative 1.1.2
• Regionalization with the City of Jackson
Sewer conveyance to the City of Jackson
WWTP − Construction of 5-mile raw sewage pipe − New pump station Increased capacity and upgrades at the
Jackson WWTP
• Considerations
Site constraints
Pumping costs
Discharge limitations
Capacity issues
10 City of Jackson WWTP
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/11
// Alternative 1.1.3
• Regionalization with the City of Ione
Sewer conveyance to the City of Ione WWTP − Construction of 11-mile raw sewage pipe − New pump station Increased capacity and upgrades at the Ione
WWTP
• Considerations
Pumping costs
Discharge limitations – not all water is treated
to a tertiary level Capacity issues
11 City of Ione WWTP
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/12
// Alternative 1.1.4 • New Tertiary Treatment Plant – Surface Water Discharge Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment −Influent pump station −Headworks −4-MG equalization tank −Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) −Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) −Outfall pipeline with diffusers Year-round discharge to Sutter Creek 12 Tertiary Treatment
Sutter Creek, year-round
Filename.ppt/13
// Alternative 1.1.5
• New Tertiary Treatment Plant – ARSA/Surface
Water Discharge (Dry/Wet Season) Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment − Influent pump station − Headworks − 4-MG equalization tank − Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) − Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) − Outfall pipeline with diffusers
Dry season discharge to ARSA system
Wet season discharge to Sutter Creek
13 Tertiary Treatment
ARSA pipeline, dry season Sutter Creek, wet season
Filename.ppt/14
// Alternative 1.1.6
• New Tertiary Treatment Plant – ARSA/Surface Water Discharge (20:1 Dilution) Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment − Influent pump station − Headworks − 4-MG equalization tank − Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) − Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) − Outfall pipeline with diffusers Discharge to ARSA system when dilution is
less than 20:1
Discharge to Sutter Creek when dilution is greater than 20:1 14 Tertiary Treatment
ARSA pipeline, dilution<20:1 Sutter Creek, dilution>20:1 Filename.ppt/15
Project Funding Cost Analysis and Recommendation
Filename.ppt/16
// Preliminary Cost Analysis – Life Cycle Cost
16 Alternative Capital Cost Annual O&M
Annual Rehab
and Recovery Present Value
Relative
Difference
1.1.1 $64M $1.7M $1.0M $106M 19%
1.1.2 $68M $2.8M $1.1M $130M 46%
1.1.3 $79M $3.4M $1.2M $152M 70%
1.1.4 $50M $1.7M $0.8M $89M 0%
1.1.5 $61M $1.9M $0.9M $104M 17%
1.1.6 $61M $1.9M $0.9M $104M 17%
Filename.ppt/17
// Project Recommendation
• Alternative 1.1.4
Lowest present worth value
Lowest capital cost
Lowest combined annual O&M and R&R costs
Second lowest energy cost alternative
17 Tertiary Treatment
Sutter Creek, year-round
Filename.ppt/18 18
// Project
Recommendation –
Alternative 1.1.4
Site Plan
Filename.ppt/19
// Project Recommendation – Alternative 1.1.4 Site Plan 19 Filename.ppt/20
// Project Recommendation – Alternative 1.1.4 Considerations • Land Acquisition
Location of Equalization Tank
• Construction Challenges
Construction Sequencing
Maintaining Operation of Existing
Facility
Geotechnical considerations
• Easement Limitations
CALTRANS Right of Way
20 Right of Way Map
City of Sutter
Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/21
Next Steps and Action Items
Filename.ppt/22
// Next Steps and Action Items • Next Steps Board approval of project alternative Confirm funding opportunities Environmental documentation Rate study Land acquisition Caltrans coordination ROWD – NPDES permit application SRF Application • Review Action Items 22 2880 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, SUITE 300 • SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95833 • P. 916.565.4888 • F. 916.565.4880 pw://Carollo/Documents/Client\CA\Sutter Creek\12029A60\Meetings\Meetings-External\Minutes PAGE 1 of 4
MEETING MINUTES
WWTP REPLACEMENT PROJECT
City of Sutter Creek
Purpose: Project Alternatives Review Meeting
Meeting Date: February !, #!#
Meeting Location: Sutter Creek/Teams
Prepared By: Christina Romano
Attendees: Client: Carollo:
Amy Gedney
Grant Reynolds
Jim Swift
Robin Peters
Beverly Hann
Christina Romano
Eli Weintraub
Micaela Robertson
Yifan Zhang
Distribution: Attendees
Discussion
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this meeting. If this differs from your understanding, please let us know. A copy of the slides reviewed during the meeting are attached for reference.
Design Criteria
Existing facility information was discussed:
• Permitted capacity of !.56 mgd
• Existing flows – !.88 mgd ADWF, !.:: mgd max month ADF Robin mentioned that he’s seen previous calculations for ADWF at !.#6 mgd. Grant concurred and Yifan described that the ADWF above was calculated using the past three years of data, as opposed to just one year (as was done for the !.#6 mgd ADWF).
Christina described future flow projections based on a #!-year horizon. The projections are based on current data and growth rates described in the master plan.
Robin asked about permitted capacity and noted that the City has committed to not increasing permitted capacity as it relates to the CEQA process. Robin also noted his preference to avoid a growth inducing scenario and that he understands the permitted capacity to be based on ADWF. Christina confirmed that conversations with the Regional Board will be focused on maintaining the current permitted capacity.
Christina also shared that all of the alternatives to be discussed next were based on designing the plant to handle a !.:: mgd max month ADF and storage for a !-yr/#5-hr storm. The City agreed with moving ahead based on these design criteria.
Issue Date: #- #-#!#
Project No.: #!#AA.:!
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE # of 5
Funding Agreement Alternatives
The alternatives outlined in the City’s funding agreement were reviewed. These are the alternatives the City is required to review based on what was included in their planning funding agreement.
Alternative 1.1.1 – Secondary treatment with ARSA disposal: Christina described the need for a storage tank with this alternative and noted that it would be included for all alternatives.
Jim asked why a tank would be needed, if there isn’t one now. Eli and Yifan explained that the equalization tank is required to handle !-yr/#5-hr storm events, and Christina noted designing for peak storm events is a criteria the plant must meet. Eli and Yifan described site constraints and the history of spills that make it necessary.
Robin noted that this alternative doesn’t address disposal, and Yifan stated that costs for upgrades/expansion to the ARSA system are included.
Alternative 1.1.2 – Regionalization with Jackson: Robin noted that minutes from a previous meeting (January meeting w/ state stakeholders) included a description of “extensive” conversation with Jackson about regionalization. He said that was not an accurate description of the level of communication about regionalization. Yifan and Christina acknowledged Robin’s concern and requested feedback from the City when reviewing the Project Report to make sure this is reflected propertly.
Alternative 1.1.3 – Regionalization with Ione: Christina noted that this alternative is similar to . .8 with a longer pipeline.
Alternative 1.1.4 – Tertiary treatment with year-round discharge to Sutter Creek: Christina confirmed Carollo’s understanding that this is the preferred alternative.
Alternative 1.1.5 – Tertiary treatment with wet-season discharge to Sutter Creek, dry season discharge to ARSA: Eli mentioned that costs held in this alternative for the ARSA system are lower than those held in the . . cost estimate. This is because ARSA would only be needed for dry-season flow.
Alternative 1.1.6 – Tertiary treatment with discharge to Sutter Creek when dilution is > +,:-, discharge to ARSA when dilution is < +,:-: Eli noted that costs for Alternative . .E and . .: are assumed to be the same because there is no creek flow information available to determine when dilution would be possible.
Robin and Yifan discussed flow dilution and calculated that approximately #! cfs would be required in the creek for discharge to be allowed.
Alternative Cost Analysis
Christina summarized the costs and described Alternative . .5 as being the lowest cost alternative – approximately FE!M capital cost. Robin shared that alternative . .5 would be the preferred option, but noted that he doesn’t think the City can get stakeholder buy-in at FE!M. Funding from SRF would cover FE.EM and USDA funds are not currently an option because this is proposed as a design-build project. One potential option is to switch the project procurement to a design-bid-build scenario to allow for USDA funding. Christina mentioned that Carollo is looking at all funding options and will present findings to the City in an upcoming meeting. Robin asked about the upgrade cost that was used for the most recent rate study. Amy noted that she believed F #M was assumed for the treatment plant project costs.
Jim asked if a storage tank could fit on the existing site. Christina and Yifan said no, that space needs to be used for the planned secondary treatment. Christina and Yifan noted additional construction challenges
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 8 of 5
including steep hillsides and rock that limit options for storage basin locations and maintaining ongoing plant operation during construction.
Christina mentioned the City’s I/I issue drives the need for the equalization tank and addressing I/I issues could lower project costs.
Robin asked about other lower cost options, beyond the six prescribed alternatives. The group discussed the option of year-round land application as a possibility, especially if the existing plant could continue to be used without major modifications. Robin shared that the portion of the ARSA system upstream of Henderson Reservoir is in good shape compared to the rest of the system. He asked about expanding the ARSA system so that it could handle all flows without a connection to Ione. This would likely include looking at new sprayfields and rehabbing reservoirs. Robin would like to see a cost comparison between rehabbing the upper Henderson Reservoir versus the entire system for additional disposal capacity.
The project team discussed possible solutions involving upgrades to the ARSA system and possibly the treatment plant. Amy mentioned that the political environment is different than it was last time the ARSA system was looked at in detail. Robin said that it’s possible that Henderson Reservoir could be used after repairs. The team also talked about the possibility of step-wise implementation to spread costs out.
Amy asked if costs within each alternative are broken down further than what was presented. Yifan and Christina confirmed that to be the case and said Carollo could provide those detailed cost breakdowns to The City.
Robin said that a previous ARSA engineer did some calculations for rehabbing Henderson Reservoir and said he would share those with Carollo. He said that a new tertiary plant made a lot of sense at F#EM but less so at FE!M. He noted that he believes that the costs we’re talking about today are more realistic than those in the master plan.
Christina also noted that the City’s I/I challenges should continue to be part of the discussion as making improvements to laterals, etc. could reduce overall treatment/disposal project costs.
Moving Forward
Christina laid out potential options to keep things moving forward:
) Hold off on finalizing the draft Project Report.
#) Allow Seema to complete her funding information TM – this is in process and will be available in the next two weeks.
8) Look at other alternatives beyond the six prescribed alternatives including a Plan B, year-round land application scenario.
5) Move the status meeting originally scheduled for Thursday, February 6th to the following Thursday (February #Eth) to allow the team time to pull this additional information together and share it prior to meeting again.
The City agreed with this approach.
Next steps
The project update meeting that was scheduled for #/ 6 has been moved to #/#E and will now be focused on funding opportunities and a discussion about the Plan B year-round land application option.
MEETING MINUTES
PAGE 5 of 5
Action Items:
. Provide more detailed cost breakdowns to the City (Carollo). #. Provide funding options for the project (Carollo).
8. Look into alternatives that are more cost effective than the six currently proposed project alternatives (Carollo).
5. Share Henderson Reservoir calculation with Carollo and team (Robin).
Filename.ppt/1
Project Alternatives Meeting
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
S u t t e r C r e e k C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r / / F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 2 1 Filename.ppt/2
// Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Design Criteria
3. Funding Agreement Alternatives
4. Project Funding Cost Analysis and Recommendation
5. Next Steps and Action Items
2 Filename.ppt/3
Introductions
Filename.ppt/4
Design Criteria
Filename.ppt/5
// Design Criteria Discussion
• Current WWTP
Permitted capacity – 0.48 mgd
Master Plan maximum
treatment capacity – 0.96 mgd
• Equalization Storage
1.1 MG
5 Filename.ppt/6
// Design Criteria Discussion
6 Current Future
Average dry weather flow 0.33 mgd 0.58 mgd
Max month average daily flow 0.66 mgd 1.17 mgd
Peak day flow 3.15 mgd 3.5 mgd
Peak hour flow 4.7 mgd 5.8 mgd
Filename.ppt/7
// Design Criteria Discussion
7 • Regional Board will use the average dry weather flow as a starting point to establish the permitted capacity of the new treatment facility Current permitted capacity – 0.48 mgd
Current ADWF – 0.33 mgd
New plant permitted capacity – to be determined by Regional Board • Proposed Design Criteria:
Max month average daily flow = treatment plant capacity of 0.66 mgd Equalization storage: 10-yr/24-hr storm – 3.9 MG
Filename.ppt/8
Funding Agreement Alternatives
Filename.ppt/9
// Alternative 1.1.1
• New Secondary Treatment Plant
Replace current treatment equipment
Upgraded secondary treatment facilities −Influent pump station −Headworks −4-MG equalization tank −Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) −Chlorine contact basin Continuous year-round ARSA discharge
9 Aero-Mod Secondary Treatment System
Filename.ppt/10
// Alternative 1.1.2
• Regionalization with the City of Jackson
Sewer conveyance to the City of Jackson
WWTP − Construction of 5-mile raw sewage pipe − New pump station Increased capacity and upgrades at the
Jackson WWTP
• Considerations
Site constraints
Pumping costs
Discharge limitations
Capacity issues
10 City of Jackson WWTP
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/11
// Alternative 1.1.3
• Regionalization with the City of Ione
Sewer conveyance to the City of Ione WWTP − Construction of 11-mile raw sewage pipe − New pump station Increased capacity and upgrades at the Ione
WWTP
• Considerations
Pumping costs
Discharge limitations – not all water is treated
to a tertiary level Capacity issues
11 City of Ione WWTP
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/12
// Alternative 1.1.4 • New Tertiary Treatment Plant – Surface Water Discharge Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment −Influent pump station −Headworks −4-MG equalization tank −Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) −Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) −Outfall pipeline with diffusers Year-round discharge to Sutter Creek 12 Tertiary Treatment
Sutter Creek, year-round
Filename.ppt/13
// Alternative 1.1.5
• New Tertiary Treatment Plant – ARSA/Surface
Water Discharge (Dry/Wet Season) Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment − Influent pump station − Headworks − 4-MG equalization tank − Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) − Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) − Outfall pipeline with diffusers
Dry season discharge to ARSA system
Wet season discharge to Sutter Creek
13 Tertiary Treatment
ARSA pipeline, dry season Sutter Creek, wet season
Filename.ppt/14
// Alternative 1.1.6
• New Tertiary Treatment Plant – ARSA/Surface Water Discharge (20:1 Dilution) Replace current equipment with tertiary treatment equipment − Influent pump station − Headworks − 4-MG equalization tank − Secondary treatment system (Aero-Mod) − Tertiary treatment system (disc filtration, UV disinfection) − Outfall pipeline with diffusers Discharge to ARSA system when dilution is
less than 20:1
Discharge to Sutter Creek when dilution is greater than 20:1 14 Tertiary Treatment
ARSA pipeline, dilution<20:1 Sutter Creek, dilution>20:1 Filename.ppt/15
Project Funding Cost Analysis and Recommendation
Filename.ppt/16
// Preliminary Cost Analysis – Life Cycle Cost
16 Alternative Capital Cost Annual O&M
Annual Rehab
and Recovery Present Value
Relative
Difference
1.1.1 $64M $1.7M $1.0M $106M 19%
1.1.2 $68M $2.8M $1.1M $130M 46%
1.1.3 $79M $3.4M $1.2M $152M 70%
1.1.4 $50M $1.7M $0.8M $89M 0%
1.1.5 $61M $1.9M $0.9M $104M 17%
1.1.6 $61M $1.9M $0.9M $104M 17%
Filename.ppt/17
// Project Recommendation
• Alternative 1.1.4
Lowest present worth value
Lowest capital cost
Lowest combined annual O&M and R&R costs
Second lowest energy cost alternative
17 Tertiary Treatment
Sutter Creek, year-round
Filename.ppt/18 18
// Project
Recommendation –
Alternative 1.1.4
Site Plan
Filename.ppt/19
// Project Recommendation – Alternative 1.1.4 Site Plan 19 Filename.ppt/20
// Project Recommendation – Alternative 1.1.4 Considerations • Land Acquisition
Location of Equalization Tank
• Construction Challenges
Construction Sequencing
Maintaining Operation of Existing
Facility
Geotechnical considerations
• Easement Limitations
CALTRANS Right of Way
20 Right of Way Map
City of Sutter
Creek WWTP
Filename.ppt/21
Next Steps and Action Items
Filename.ppt/22
// Next Steps and Action Items • Next Steps Board approval of project alternative Confirm funding opportunities Environmental documentation Rate study Land acquisition Caltrans coordination ROWD – NPDES permit application SRF Application • Review Action Items 22 pw://Carollo/Documents/Error! Unknown document property name./Error! Unknown document property name. PAGE 1 of 4
MEETING MINUTES
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
City of Sutter Creek/ARSA
Purpose: Review project alternative B scenarios and funding opportunities for the Sutter Creek WWTP Improvements project.
Meeting Date: &/&(/&)&* +PM-(:/)PM
Meeting Location: Zoom Meeting
Prepared By: Micaela Robertson
Attendees: Client: Carollo: Other:
Amy Gedney
Grant Reynolds
Jim Swift
Robin Peters
Christina Romano
Yifan Zhang
Eli Weintraub
Beverly Hann
Micaela Robertson
Maddi Rasmus
Seema Chavan
Sydney Coatsworth
(Ascent Environmental)
Andrea Shephard (AE)
Distribution: Attendees, File
Discussion:
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this conference. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us.
*. Christina started the PowerPoint meeting with introductions &. Alternative B Scenarios
a. Master Plan
i. Includes WWTP upgrades and /-MG EQ basin.
ii. Assumes year-round discharge to ARSA/land application. iii. Total cost escalated to midpoint of construction &)&/ is ;</.<M. iv. Robin noted the cost of WWTP upgrades is ;&/.(M and asked if it is best spent on upgrading a secondary plant versus other improvements. He described the wastewater issue as a disposal problem, not a treatment problem.
*) Christina explained the WWTP costs are based on the alternative * costs from the Master Plan.
v. Jim noted the Master Plan includes higher costs for dredging less volume from Henderson, than the Plan B scenario which costs less for dredging more. He asked why the discrepancy exists.
Issue Date: &/&(/&)&*
Project No.: *&)&>A.<)
PAGE & of +
*) Christina explained the unit costs for each scenario are different (;*),)))/AF dredged for Master Plan vs ;&(,+))/AF for Plan B) and these costs will need to be verified. b. Plan B Scenario
i. WWTP upgrades and /-MG EQ basin
ii. Assumes year-round discharge to ARSA/land application and seasonal discharge to Sutter Creek.
iii. Robin asked how the WWTP can discharge secondary treatment to Sutter Creek. Robin explained his vision for this alternative included providing enough land application area to discharge all effluent to the land without tertiary treatment. *) Christina explained the seasonal discharge was included since it was referenced in the &)*> letter, however the water balance was not provided for verification of the design assumptions.
c. Gap analysis
i. Gaps in available information: a water balance, condition assessment, unit cost verification, and Sutter Creek flows
ii. Amy asked what level of detail is needed for the condition assessment. *) Christina explained the condition assessment can be phased with engineers assessing current equipment. The condition assessment would give us confidence about how long the current equipment is going to last.
&) Robin reiterated that the City current has a disposal problem that is the main focus, not the treatment. Upgrading the WWTP to tertiary was the least expensive way to solve the discharge problem in the Master Plan, but it may not be the case anymore. He doesn’t think it makes sense to spend half the project cost on upgrading the WWTP when the main problem is disposal, not treatment.
/) Grant suggested tackling the disposal issue first and then focus on the plant, as there is not much population growth and the disposal problem is the immediate need. +) Robin voiced concern over ;&+ million in treatment cost being included in both the master plan alternative and Plan B.
() The City does not want to take on a cost commitment that they cannot fulfill- the selected alternative must be carefully analyzed in terms of funding. /. Funding Opportunities
a. Overview
i. Funding opportunities are highly competitive, and depend heavily on whether the project elements align with the funding requirements.
ii. Federal and state funding options were analyzed. Most grant programs do not cover the project cost, but loans partner well with grants.
iii. Important to note that grants are reimbursements and require payment up-front. Grant disbursements from funding agencies are currently taking a long time to be sent out due to COVID.
iv. USDA is on both the federal and state lists because USDA funds are national funds that are administered through the state.
b. USDA funding
i. Aligns well with the project, but cannot be used for a design-build project. ii. Robin asked if there is a max amount they fund and if the reimbursement is of the incurred costs. Seema answered they allow for monthly disbursements for smaller projects (quarterly for larger projects), and the reimbursement does include the incurred costs. If the PAGE / of +
project cost is higher than the state allotment, then the funding application goes through the federal level.
iii. Seema pointed out that USDA does not typically give a large grant; the USDA loan is more attractive. She suggested applying for the SRF grant and USDA loan. c. Seema suggested securing a loan program first, and then apply for grants to reduce the total project cost.
d. Seema noted that funding agencies have historically looked for shovel-ready projects to fund, and are making a slight shift to looking for shovel-worthy projects. e. CWSRF funding
i. Opportunity to increase the grant total to ;*)M if the project can be split into & parts (one for I/I, and one for disposal possibly).
f. Strategies & Recommendations
i. Most of the programs require cost adders (reporting requirements, CEQA, etc.). ii. Seema recommends the following funding options:
*) *))% SRF funding
&) *))% USDA funding
/) SRF/USDA funding (may be the best option)
+) WIFIA/USDA
g. Other potential opportunities
i. There is an SSO/CSO funding program slowly rolling out (that can be used for the I/I aspect of the project).
ii. The American Wastewater Infrastructure Act program (;()M, state allotment) is an upcoming program that has not been developed fully yet. h. Seema reiterated that the funding needs to match the project and the project needs to be developed to match the funding.
+. Discussion
a. Robin asked if the City should assume that they will receive a funding program - i.e. should the City assume that either grants or low-interest loans will be available for whatever project is selected? He explained that if funding availability is assured for any selected project, then selection of the preferred alternative is not driven by funding availability - taking one variable off of the table. That said, if funding availability is not an issue - i.e. is not guiding alternative selection - then the range of viable alternatives will include only those projects having costs the ratepayers will tolerate. He suggested that no project, regardless of funding availability, will go to construction unless the ratepayers accept it as the lowest cost alternative to solving the problem.
i. Christina answered there are large info gaps that we could map out for each alternative.
Carollo can give some idea of what the funding would look like, based on other projects of similar size and scale. When all the alternatives are mapped out, the risk tolerances can be identified.
ii. Seema noted that Carollo can sit down with the funding agency and explain the project and situation with a project description from the City to assess the likelihood of funding being available.
b. Jim asked what the rate estimates are under the different levels of project costs. i. Robin wants to understand the rate impact to taxpayers to determine what is tolerable and establish certainty around funding.
c. Robin asked if the WWTP planning process changes from the alternatives listed in the SRF application, then would it jeopardize funding.
PAGE + of +
i. Eli mentioned the alternative B scenarios are similar to alternative *.*.*. and could be presented to line up with key elements of that option.
(. Next Steps
a. The City to internally review the current information i. Model rate scenarios for ;*)M, ;&)M, through ;()M project sizes to understand rate impacts.
ii. Determine the remaining useful life of the existing treatment plant before it requires a major replacement.
b. The City to provide a project description for Seema to sit down with funding agencies c. Christina to circle back with Amy &/&<
d. Christina to send out the PowerPoint and draft summary form Filename.ppt/1
Project Alternatives and
Funding Discussion
City of Sutter Creek WWTP Replacement Project
F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 2 1
Filename.ppt/2
// Agenda
1. Introductions
2. Master Plan Scenario and Plan B Discussion
3. Project Funding Alternatives
4. Next Steps and Action Items
2 Filename.ppt/3
Introductions
Filename.ppt/4
Master Plan Scenario and Plan B Discussion
Filename.ppt/5
// Master Plan Scenario
• Upgraded Secondary Treatment Plant
Upgrade existing treatment equipment
3-MG EQ tank & pump station**
• Continuous year-round ARSA discharge
• Additional storage capacity in Henderson
Reservoir
44 acre-feet dredging/sludge removal
• New Ione Canal Reservoir and pipeline
• New 121 acres of sprayfields
New Holbo/Kraft Ranch & Paine Road sprayfields
Buildout of Bowers/Hoskins Ranch sprayfields
5 Henderson Reservoir
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
44 ACF Dredged
Filename.ppt/6
// Master Plan
6 Filename.ppt/7
// Master Plan - Preliminary Cost Analysis
7 Alternative
Influent
Pump
Station & EQ
Tank
WWTP
Upgrades
Pipeline to
new Ione
Reservoir
ARSA
Pipeline
Upgrades
Henderson
Dredging or
Repair
New Storage
Reservoir
(Ione)
Land
Acquisition
New
Sprayfields
Total
Cost
Master Plan $8.9M $23.5M $4.0M - $4.4M $19M $2M* $1.8M* $63.6M Description
3-MG
concrete
tank on hill,
pump
station
Headworks,
EQ basin,
sludge
treatment,
chlorine
contact
basin
7,200LF
total (20”
pipe to Ione
Reservoir,
12” from
Ione
Reservoir)
-
44AF
dredged at
$25,000/AF
and potential
outlet repairs
617AF
reservoir,
including
embankment
access road,
outlet piping
100 acres
(existing
sprayfields)
$15,000/ac
and
reservoir at
$0.5M
121 acres at
$15,000/ac
includes
irrigation
improvements
*Land acquisition costs were not escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023).
Costs escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023)
Filename.ppt/8
// Plan B Scenario
• Upgraded Secondary Treatment Plant
Upgrade existing treatment equipment
3-MG EQ tank & pump station
• Continuous year-round ARSA
discharge
• Additional storage capacity in
Henderson Reservoir
157 acre-feet dredging/sludge
removal
• New 80 acres of sprayfields &
seasonal discharge to Sutter Creek
8 Henderson Reservoir
Sutter Creek
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
157ACF Dredged
Seasonal
Discharge
Filename.ppt/9
// Plan B
9 Filename.ppt/10
// Plan B - Preliminary Cost Analysis
10 Alternative
Influent
Pump
Station & EQ
Tank
WWTP
Upgrades
Pipeline to
new Ione
Reservoir
ARSA
Pipeline
Upgrades
Henderson
Dredging or
Repair
New
Storage
Reservoir
(Ione)
Land
Acquisition
New
Sprayfields
Total
Cost
Plan B $8.9M $23.5M - $1.4M $2.2M - $1.5M* $1.2M* $38.7M Description
3-MG
concrete
tank on hill,
pump
station
Outfall pipe,
headworks,
EQ basin,
sludge
treatment,
chlorine
contact
basin
-
7,900 LF
replaced
157 AF dredged
at $10,000/AF
and underdrain
repairs
-
100 acres
(existing
sprayfields)
at
$15,000/ac
80 acres at
$15,000/ac
includes
irrigation
improvements
*Land acquisition costs were not escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023).
Costs escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023)
Filename.ppt/11
// Summary – Land Application Scenarios
11 Master Plan Plan B
WWTP Upgrades WWTP Upgrades + outfall to Sutter
Creek
Effluent land discharge Effluent land discharge and
Seasonal Surface Water discharge
New Ione Canal Reservoir and
piping (7,200 LF) construction
ARSA pipeline (7,900 LF)
replacement
44 AF Dredged from Henderson
Reservoir + Potential Outlet Repairs
157 AF Dredged from Henderson
Reservoir + Underdrain Repair
Land acquisition – 100 ac + Ione
Canal Reservoir
Land acquisition – 100 ac
121 ac new sprayfields needed 80 ac new sprayfields needed Cost: $63.6M Cost: $38.7M
Filename.ppt/12
// Gap Analysis • Water balance • Condition assessment WWTP and pipelines • Unit cost verification Dredging Henderson − $25,400/AF (Master Plan) − $10,000/AF (Plan B) Land acquisition • Sutter Creek flows to support seasonal discharge of secondary
effluent
12 ARSA pipeline
Filename.ppt/13
Project Funding Alternatives
Filename.ppt/14
Funding opportunities: Low-interest loans or Grant funding • Federal/state and local funding opportunities available Planning, design, research, and construction
Highly competitive requiring project/project purpose to closely match funding program objective/requirements
Funding program must coincide with project term (“readiness to proceed”) Most low interest loans and grants are reimbursements (not cash up front) Application process can be time-consuming and costly
• Grants:
Require a minimum cost share by the project sponsor (in-kind donations maybe applicable match)
Filename.ppt/15
Contemplating low-interest loans or grant funding?
• Pursue planning, design and/or construction financing Under planning effort develop required documentation for construction financing
• Identify project “hooks” to meet intent of funding programs:
−Project Purpose - Disadvantaged Community (DACs)
−Regional Benefit/Consolidation - Risk/Resiliency
−Energy/Water Efficiency - Flood protection
• Key to securing funding
Identify project elements, benefits, and opportunities to enhance project Planning ahead, strong project description/packaging and project “readiness to proceed”
Filename.ppt/16
Potential Grant and Low Interest Loan Opportunities
• SWRCB
− Clean Water SRF Fund*
− Small Community Clean Water/WW
Funding*
− Water Recycling Fund
• USDA
− Water and Waste Disposal Loan/Grant
Program
− Rural Development Rural Utilities
Service Guaranteed and Direct Loan
and Grants
• Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program
• EDA Public Works and Development
Facilities Program
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
(ISRF)
• EPA - Water Infrastructure Finance
Innovation Act (WIFIA)*
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation*
− Title XVI Water Reclamation
− Water Marketing
− Drought Projects
• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
• FEMA – Building Resilient
Infrastructure and Communities
• Other (Dept. of Energy,…)
• AWIA 2018/2020
Federal Funding State Funding
Filename.ppt/17
// Federal Funding Programs
17 Program
Agency Type Requirements
Water Infrastructure
Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) EPA Loan
• Small community projects min
project cost $5M
• Provides 49% financing
• 35 year loan term;5yr defer
Water & Waste
Disposal Loan & Grant
Program USDA Grant/Loan
• <10,000 population
• Interest rate vary (1.25%)
• 40 year loan term; small grant
funding
• Can not use DB Delivery
NRWA Revolving Loan
Fund
National Rural Water
Association Loan
• <10,000 population
• Short-term repairs, small
projects, pre-development cost
• Max $100,000 or 75% cost)
• 10 year loan term
• 3% interest
Filename.ppt/18
// Federal Funding Programs
18 Program
Agency Type Requirements
Public Works and
Economic
Adjustment
Assistance
Programs
Dept. of Commerce Grant
• Funding up to $3,000,000 or 50% of project
cost based on job development
• $10,000/permanent job
• Requires economic impact statement, A&E
Procurement, federal cross cutters
Community
Development Block
Grant Programs
(CDBG)
Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Grant
• Benefit low to moderate income in cities of
fewer than 50,000 people
• Up to $1.5 million
Title XVI/WIIN Water
Reclamation/Reuse US Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
• Up to $20M (requires match funding)
• Feasibility Study
• Recycled Water Projects
WaterSMART Water
Marketing Strategy
Grants
US Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
• $200K (2 year) or $400K (3 year)
• Planning activities to develop water
marketing strategy to establish or expand
water markets
Filename.ppt/19
// State Funding Programs
19 Program Agency Type Requirements
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
(CWSRF)
State Water
Resources Control
Board (SWRCB)
Loan
• Wastewater treatment, transmission,
distribution system, recycled water, etc
• Low interest (0.9%); 30-year loan term
• Green Project Reserve (up to $4m grant)
• Federal Cross Cutters
Small Community Clean
Water/Wastewater
(SCWW) Funding SWRCB Grant/Loan
• Small communities <6,000 or expanded
small communities (<20,000)
• DAC (<80% MHI)
• Grant: $6M; Up to $10M if can break up
project (phases, ww vs collection, et.)
• Low interest loans (0.9%); 30 year
Water Recycling Funding
(WRF) Program –
Planning and
Construction Grants
SWRCB Grant
• For recycled water projects
• Prop 1 grant funding is fully or close to
allocated; however may have some DAC
funding
Filename.ppt/20
// State Funding Programs
20 Program Agency Type Requirements
Infrastructure State
Revolving Fund (ISRF) CA Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
Loan
• Variety of infrastructure and economic
development projects including WWTP
Improvements, flood control, public
safety
• Loans from $50,000 up to $25M
• 30 year loan term
Filename.ppt/21
Potential Funding Strategies
100% Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF) Funding
• Low Interest Loan Financing (FY 2021 0.9% interest/30 years) • $6M grant but possible to secure up to $10M grant
• Considerations: Federal Cross Cutter Requirements
100% USDA Funding • Low interest loan financing (1.25%; 40 year loan term) • Grant funding would be dependent on MHI
• Considerations:
• Program will not fund DB project delivery
• USDA has limited funding capacity (annual cap is $30- $40M); would require national approval
Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF) /USDA Funding
• CWSRF grant funding up to $10M
• USDA Low Interest Loan Financing (perhaps small grant) • Considerations:
• Program will not fund DB project delivery
• USDA has limited funding capacity (annual cap is $30- $40M); would require national approval
WIFIA & Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF)/USDA
49% WIFIA and 51% SRF/USDA Financing
WIFIA is competitive; low demand on program for DAC projects 21 Filename.ppt/22
Next Steps and Action Items
Filename.ppt/23
// Next Steps and Action Items
• Next Steps
Project Size – $40M to $50M
Option 1 – Verify Plan B Assumptions and NPV Analysis Option 2 – Move ahead with Project Alternative 1.1.4 – Tertiary Facility with Sutter Creek Discharge
Select Funding Options to Pursue
• Review Action Items
23 pw://Carollo/Documents/Error! Unknown document property name./Error! Unknown document property name. PAGE 1 of 3
MEETING MINUTES
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Purpose: Review Revised Project Alternative B Scenario for the Sutter Creek WWTP Improvements Project
Meeting Date: $/&&/&'&( )PM-,:$'PM
Meeting Location: Sutter Creek Community Center
Prepared By: Christina Romano
Attendees: Client: Carollo:
Amy Gedney
Grant Reynolds
Jim Swift
Robin Peters
Christina Romano
Distribution: Attendees, File
The following is our understanding of the subject matter covered in this meeting. If this differs from your understanding, please notify us.
Discussion
Robin noted that the original Carollo scope included preparation of a Project Report for a tertiary treatment facility. After our last meeting, City staff discussed the challenges of getting a 6)'M to 6,'M project through City Council and worked through some potential funding scenarios. Robin also noted that the funding information provided by Seema was very helpful. The City team brainstormed how they might execute this project one step at a time within funding limitations. Robin shared a revised “Plan B” project as outlined below:
o Influent EQ tank – 6<.=M
o WWTP upgrades – 6(.,M
Grant looked at the WWTP and estimates approximately 6(.,M of deferred maintenance would be required to keep it running.
o Henderson dredging – 6&.&M
The City also shared that Henderson Dam was build in (=(& and DSOD has noted some repairs are required. The City has been holding off on these repairs until a project could be funded and executed. The estimate from the Master Plan above includes these repairs.
The State owns the Henderson Dam property
o Land application area acquisition – 6&.BM
Issue Date: $/&&/&'&(
Project No.: (&'&=A.B'
PAGE & of $
Assumes 180 acres will need to be purchased.
There is an internal debate as to whether or not this land can be purchased. It may need to be a long-term lease, but it is unknown if this will satisfy State requirements for land application permitting.
o ARSA Pipeline upgrades – 61.4M
Robin noted that these repairs may or may not be needed but the City includes the cost for planning purposes
o Total potential cost of $16.7M capital – estimated by the City at $20M total project with contingencies and design/CM costs included.
Robin then walked through a potential funding scenario that the City team feels might be supported by the City Council. Assuming the City was successful in obtaining the full 6BM in SRF grant funding, and 6()M in loans from USDA, it is estimated that the monthly rate increase would be approximately 6$'/month per EUD. This calculation was based on a USDA loan at 2% for 40 years ($42K per month). City residents currently pay $72/month with increases already occurring over the next few years.
Christina shared some of the assumptions and considerations for this revised “Plan B” scenario, including:
o Assumption is that we can get enough storage at Henderson through dredging.
Additional storage volume estimates are currently based on flows estimated in the master plan which do not take into account a 10-year 24-hour storm. Therefore, additional storage may be required.
o During the meeting it was shared that Henderson Dam is under the jurisdiction of DSOD.
Doing any expansion or repairs to the dam and reservoir will require permitting with DSOD. Christina shared her experience going through this process on a recent project – it involves geotechnical investigations and seepage calculations to support the proposed improvements. It can be done, but needs to be considered in the schedule for the project.
o The Master Plan water balance was based on lower flow assumptions. An update water balance will be required to confirm storage and land application area requirements. o A seasonal discharge to Sutter Creek will require flow monitoring in the creek to confirm winter flow rates.
o Need to confirm with the Regional Board if Sutter Creek needs to own the land for application.
o The City needs to contact the State Board to confirm if/how the SRF planning grant can be used if the project changes from DB to DBB.
Christina mentioned that the bioassessment work was ready to be released at the City’s direction. This is required for any new discharges to Sutter Creek and the group agreed this work should proceed as a creek discharge is part of any project moving forward. Amy asked Carollo to prepare a critical path schedule to help the City understand the path forward and decisions required to select a final project. Christina committed to generating a draft schedule for City review by Thursday, March 25
th so the City can review it while she is on
vacation and return comments to her when she returns to the office on Thursday, April 1st. A PAGE $ of $
follow-up meeting was also scheduled for Wednesday, April 7th at 4 pm to review comments and next steps as a team.
Action Items
Amy - Call SRF to confirm planning grant usage for non-DB work
Christina - Prepare critical path schedule with offramps and detailed discussions/decisions that are needed
Christina - Release bioassessment work and get it scheduled for the month of April ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
1 Plan B Alternative Planning 346 days Wed 2/10/21 Wed 6/8/22 2 Draft Project Report alternatives
presentation
1 day Wed 2/10/21 Wed 2/10/21
3 Plan B alternative presentation 1 day Thu 2/25/21 Thu 2/25/214 City's revised Plan B discussion 1 day Thu 3/18/21 Thu 3/18/215 Prepare overall Plan B critical path schedule
14 days Fri 3/19/21 Wed 4/7/21
6 Prepare draft schedule 5 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 3/25/217 City review 5 days Fri 3/26/21 Thu 4/1/218 City provides comments to Carollo 0 days Thu 4/1/21 Thu 4/1/219 Comment/review meeting 1 day Wed 4/7/21 Wed 4/7/21 10 Negotiate ARSA Discharge Extension 180 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 11/25/2111 Initial Financial Evaluation 15 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 4/8/2112 Initial rate analysis 15 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 4/8/2113 Determine SRF planning grant implications (City)
65 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 6/17/21
14 Contact SRF contact to discuss
potential change
5 days Fri 3/19/21 Thu 3/25/21
15 Prepare planning grant agreement
modification request
10 days Fri 3/26/21 Thu 4/8/21
16 State Board review 20 days Fri 4/9/21 Thu 5/6/2117 State reissues agreement 30 days Fri 5/7/21 Thu 6/17/2118 City gives green light to evaluate Plan B next steps (regulatory, etc.)
1 day Fri 6/18/21 Fri 6/18/21
19 Determine DSOD permitting requirements 30 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 7/30/2120 Provide as-built and DSOD permitting information (City)
10 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 7/2/21
21 Confirm DSOD permitting
requirements with DSOD
20 days Mon 7/5/21 Fri 7/30/21
22 Determine environmental permitting
requirements
11 days Mon 6/21/21 Mon 7/5/21
23 Provide Plan B information to Ascent 1 day Mon 6/21/21 Mon 6/21/2124 Ascent review of initial project description 10 days Tue 6/22/21 Mon 7/5/2125 Ascent to provide summary of CEQA/CEQA plus and other (401, 404, 1602) permitting requirements 0 days Mon 7/5/21 Mon 7/5/21
26 Determine Regional Board permitting
requirments for land application and seasonal discharge 305 days Thu 4/8/21 Wed 6/8/22
2/10
2/25
3/18
4/1
4/7
6/18
7/5
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M Half 2, 2020 Half 1, 2021 Half 2, 2021 Half 1, 2022 Half 2, 2022 Half 1, 2023 Half 2, 2023 Half 1, 2024 Half 2, 2024 Half 1, 2025 TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Plan B Project Alternative - Draft Schedule
Project: Sutter Creek WWTPDate: Fri 3/26/21
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
27 Develop initial updated water
balance based on estimated stream flows
40 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 8/13/21
28 Provide updated water balance
information to Regional Board
1 day Mon 8/16/21 Mon 8/16/21
29 Initial Regional Board Plan B discussion1 day Tue 9/14/21 Tue 9/14/2130 Additional effluent sampling and analysis 30 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 7/30/2131 Install stream gauge 40 days Thu 4/8/21 Wed 6/2/2132 Collect Sutter Creek flow data 265 days Thu 6/3/21 Wed 6/8/2233 WWTP Condition Assessment Verification40 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 8/13/2134 ARSA Pipeline Condition Assessment Verification
40 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 8/13/21
35 Determine Land Application Needs 10 days Mon 8/16/21 Fri 8/27/2136 Initial Plan B Funding Evaluation 25 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 7/23/2137 Determine potential funding sources 5 days Mon 6/21/21 Fri 6/25/2138 Meet with funding agencies to discuss project and funding opportunities
20 days Mon 6/28/21 Fri 7/23/21
39 Plan B Initial Evaluation Workshop 1 day Wed 9/15/21 Wed 9/15/2140 City selects Plan B project alternative 1 day Thu 9/16/21 Thu 9/16/2141 Prepare SRF Project Report 75 days Fri 9/17/21 Thu 12/30/2142 Preliminary Design 20 days Fri 9/17/21 Thu 10/14/2143 Prepare Draft Project Report to Meet Funding Requirements
20 days Fri 10/15/21 Thu 11/11/21
44 Internal QM Draft Project Report 5 days Fri 11/12/21 Thu 11/18/2145 Incorporate QM comments 5 days Fri 11/19/21 Thu 11/25/2146 Submit Draft Project Report to City 0 days Thu 11/25/21 Thu 11/25/2147 City Review Draft Project Report 10 days Fri 11/26/21 Thu 12/9/2148 Comment/Review Meeting 0 days Thu 12/16/21 Thu 12/16/2149 Incoporate City Comments on Report 10 days Fri 12/17/21 Thu 12/30/2150 Submit Final Project Report 0 days Thu 12/30/21 Thu 12/30/2151 Rate Study (by others) 160 days Fri 11/26/21 Thu 7/7/2252 Rate Analysis 40 days Fri 11/26/21 Thu 1/20/2253 Prop 218 Process 120 days Fri 1/21/22 Thu 7/7/2254 CEQA (Ascent) 251 days Fri 12/31/21 Fri 12/16/2255 Preliminary Findings for Chosen Alternative 60 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 3/24/2256 Draft Report 90 days Fri 3/25/22 Thu 7/28/2257 City Review 10 days Fri 7/29/22 Thu 8/11/2258 Final Administrative Report 30 days Fri 8/12/22 Thu 9/22/22 8/16
9/14
9/15
9/16
11/25
12/16
12/30
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M Half 2, 2020 Half 1, 2021 Half 2, 2021 Half 1, 2022 Half 2, 2022 Half 1, 2023 Half 2, 2023 Half 1, 2024 Half 2, 2024 Half 1, 2025 TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Plan B Project Alternative - Draft Schedule
Project: Sutter Creek WWTPDate: Fri 3/26/21
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
59 Post to Clearinghouse 5 days Fri 9/23/22 Thu 9/29/22 60 Public Review Period 20 days Fri 9/30/22 Thu 10/27/2261 Respond to Comments 10 days Fri 10/28/22 Thu 11/10/2262 Issue Final CEQA document 5 days Fri 11/11/22 Thu 11/17/2263 Board acceptance of CEQA document 10 days Fri 11/18/22 Thu 12/1/2264 File Notice of Determination 1 day Fri 12/16/22 Fri 12/16/2265 NPDES Permit Assistance 465 days Mon 4/12/21 Fri 1/20/2366 Antidegradation Analysis 60 days Thu 4/14/22 Wed 7/6/2267 Stream Bioassessment 60 days Mon 4/12/21 Fri 7/2/2168 Prepare Draft ROWD 40 days Thu 4/14/22 Wed 6/8/2269 City Review 10 days Thu 6/9/22 Wed 6/22/2270 Incorporate comments and complete Final ROWD
10 days Thu 6/23/22 Wed 7/6/22
71 Submit Final ROWD to RWQCB 1 day Thu 7/7/22 Thu 7/7/2272 Regional Board review 20 days Fri 7/8/22 Thu 8/4/2273 Regional Board develops NPDES permit 120 days Fri 8/5/22 Thu 1/19/2374 NPDES Permit Issued 1 day Fri 1/20/23 Fri 1/20/2375 SRF Construction Funding Assistance 456 days Fri 12/31/21 Fri 9/29/2376 General Package 30 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 2/10/2277 Develop General Package 10 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 1/13/2278 State Board review 20 days Fri 1/14/22 Thu 2/10/2279 Technical Package 30 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 2/10/2280 Develop Technical Package 10 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 1/13/2281 State Board review 20 days Fri 1/14/22 Thu 2/10/2282 Environmental Package 70 days Fri 9/23/22 Thu 12/29/2283 Develop Environmental Package 10 days Fri 9/23/22 Thu 10/6/2284 State Board review 20 days Fri 12/2/22 Thu 12/29/2285 Financial Package 155 days Fri 1/14/22 Thu 8/18/2286 Develop Financial Package 10 days Fri 1/14/22 Thu 1/27/2287 Submit 218 Process information 10 days Fri 7/8/22 Thu 7/21/2288 State Board review/sign-off 20 days Fri 7/22/22 Thu 8/18/2289 State Board legal review 60 days Fri 12/30/22 Thu 3/23/2390 Division Chief sign-off 1 day Fri 1/27/23 Fri 1/27/2391 State Board upper management review80 days Mon 1/30/23 Fri 5/19/2392 Submit final budget approval package 5 days Mon 7/3/23 Fri 7/7/2393 Financial Agreement 60 days Mon 7/10/23 Fri 9/29/23 12/16
7/7
1/20
1/27
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M Half 2, 2020 Half 1, 2021 Half 2, 2021 Half 1, 2022 Half 2, 2022 Half 1, 2023 Half 2, 2023 Half 1, 2024 Half 2, 2024 Half 1, 2025 TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Plan B Project Alternative - Draft Schedule
Project: Sutter Creek WWTPDate: Fri 3/26/21
ID Task
Mode
Task Name Duration Start Finish
94 USDA Construction Funding Assistane 526 days Fri 10/15/21 Fri 10/20/23 95 Prepare one-page project summary 5 days Fri 12/10/21 Thu 12/16/2196 Prepare application package 100 days Fri 10/15/21 Thu 3/3/2297 Submit application package 1 day Mon 12/19/22 Mon 12/19/2298 USDA package review 80 days Tue 12/20/22 Mon 4/10/2399 Final budget approval package 20 days Mon 7/3/23 Fri 7/28/23 100 USDA Funding Agreement Issued 60 days Mon 7/31/23 Fri 10/20/23101 Design Bid Build Project 826 days Fri 12/31/21 Fri 2/28/25102 Design Phase 471 days Fri 12/31/21 Fri 10/20/23103 Geotechnical Investigation 60 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 3/24/22104 Survey 40 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 2/24/22105 30% Design 40 days Fri 2/25/22 Thu 4/21/22106 City Review 10 days Fri 4/22/22 Thu 5/5/22107 60% Design 60 days Fri 5/6/22 Thu 7/28/22108 City Review 10 days Fri 7/29/22 Thu 8/11/22109 90% Design 45 days Fri 8/12/22 Thu 10/13/22110 City Review 10 days Fri 10/14/22 Thu 10/27/22111 Bid Set 20 days Fri 10/28/22 Thu 11/24/22112 Advertise 25 days Mon 5/15/23 Fri 6/16/23113 Bid Opening 0 days Fri 6/16/23 Fri 6/16/23114 Board approves contract 10 days Mon 6/19/23 Fri 6/30/23115 Contractor NTP 0 days Fri 10/20/23 Fri 10/20/23116 DSOD Permitting 300 days Fri 12/31/21 Thu 2/23/23117 Environmental Permitting (401, 404, 1602) 276 days Fri 4/22/22 Fri 5/12/23118 Develop application packages 60 days Fri 4/22/22 Thu 7/14/22119 Submit application packages 1 day Fri 8/5/22 Fri 8/5/22120 Agency review 180 days Mon 8/8/22 Fri 4/14/23121 Permits issued 20 days Mon 4/17/23 Fri 5/12/23122 DBB Construction 355 days Mon 10/23/23 Fri 2/28/25123 Contractor mobilization 30 days Mon 10/23/23 Fri 12/1/23124 Project construction 265 days Mon 12/4/23 Fri 12/6/24125 Project commissioning/startup 60 days Mon 12/9/24 Fri 2/28/25 12/19
6/16
10/20
8/5
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M Half 2, 2020 Half 1, 2021 Half 2, 2021 Half 1, 2022 Half 2, 2022 Half 1, 2023 Half 2, 2023 Half 1, 2024 Half 2, 2024 Half 1, 2025 TaskSplitMilestoneSummary
Project SummaryInactive TaskInactive MilestoneInactive Summary Manual TaskDuration-onlyManual Summary RollupManual Summary Start-onlyFinish-onlyExternal TasksExternal Milestone
DeadlineProgressManual Progress
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
Plan B Project Alternative - Draft Schedule
Project: Sutter Creek WWTPDate: Fri 3/26/21
Filename.ppt/1
Sutter Creek WWTP Project
Pathway Discussion
S u t t e r C r e e k C o m m u n i t y C e n t e r / / M a r c h 1 0 , 2 0 2 1 Filename.ppt/2
// Path A On Hold – Alternative 1.1.4 – New Tertiary Facility and Sutter Creek Discharge
• Project Report – required for:
CEQA to begin
ROWD to continue for new
NPDES permit
SRF construction funding
application
2 • Currently on hold:
Project Report
CEQA
ROWD
−Bioassessment: fieldwork
would need to occur in April
2021
Filename.ppt/3
// Path B Gaps – Land Application with Potential Seasonal Discharge to Sutter Creek
• Water balance update
• Condition assessment
WWTP and pipelines
• Unit cost verification
Dredging Henderson
−$25,400/AF (Master Plan)
−$10,000/AF (Plan B)
Land costs
3 • Ability to acquire property
EQ tank
Land application sites
• Regional Board appetite for
Sutter Creek discharge
permit for secondary treated
wastewater
−No Sutter Creek flow data
available
Filename.ppt/4
// Potential Next Steps
• Open conversations with funding agencies
• Better understand rate impacts
• Open conversation with Regional Board about secondary discharge opportunity
• Assess condition of WWTP
• Consider I/I reduction opportunities and funding
• Update SWRCB funding on current project status
• Develop project phasing alternatives
4 Filename.ppt/5
Previous Presentation Slides
Filename.ppt/6
// Master Plan Scenario
• Upgraded Secondary Treatment Plant
Upgrade existing treatment equipment
3-MG EQ tank & pump station**
• Continuous year-round ARSA discharge
• Additional storage capacity in Henderson
Reservoir
44 acre-feet dredging/sludge removal
• New Ione Canal Reservoir and pipeline
• New 121 acres of sprayfields
New Holbo/Kraft Ranch & Paine Road sprayfields
Buildout of Bowers/Hoskins Ranch sprayfields
6 Henderson Reservoir
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
44 ACF Dredged
Filename.ppt/7
// Master Plan
7 Filename.ppt/8
// Master Plan - Preliminary Cost Analysis
8 Alternative
Influent
Pump
Station & EQ
Tank
WWTP
Upgrades
Pipeline to
new Ione
Reservoir
ARSA
Pipeline
Upgrades
Henderson
Dredging or
Repair
New Storage
Reservoir
(Ione)
Land
Acquisition
New
Sprayfields
Total
Cost
Master Plan $8.9M $23.5M $4.0M - $4.4M $19M $2M* $1.8M* $63.6M Description
3-MG
concrete
tank on hill,
pump
station
Headworks,
EQ basin,
sludge
treatment,
chlorine
contact
basin
7,200LF
total (20”
pipe to Ione
Reservoir,
12” from
Ione
Reservoir)
-
44AF
dredged at
$25,000/AF
and potential
outlet repairs
617AF
reservoir,
including
embankment
access road,
outlet piping
100 acres
(existing
sprayfields)
$15,000/ac
and
reservoir at
$0.5M
121 acres at
$15,000/ac
includes
irrigation
improvements
*Land acquisition costs were not escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023).
Costs escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023)
Filename.ppt/9
// Plan B Scenario
• Upgraded Secondary Treatment Plant
Upgrade existing treatment equipment
3-MG EQ tank & pump station
• Continuous year-round ARSA
discharge
• Additional storage capacity in
Henderson Reservoir
157 acre-feet dredging/sludge
removal
• New 80 acres of sprayfields &
seasonal discharge to Sutter Creek
9 Henderson Reservoir
Sutter Creek
City of Sutter Creek WWTP
157ACF Dredged
Seasonal
Discharge
Filename.ppt/10
// Plan B
10 Filename.ppt/11
// Plan B - Preliminary Cost Analysis
11 Alternative
Influent
Pump
Station & EQ
Tank
WWTP
Upgrades
Pipeline to
new Ione
Reservoir
ARSA
Pipeline
Upgrades
Henderson
Dredging or
Repair
New
Storage
Reservoir
(Ione)
Land
Acquisition
New
Sprayfields
Total
Cost
Plan B $8.9M $23.5M - $1.4M $2.2M - $1.5M* $1.2M* $38.7M Description
3-MG
concrete
tank on hill,
pump
station
Outfall pipe,
headworks,
EQ basin,
sludge
treatment,
chlorine
contact
basin
-
7,900 LF
replaced
157 AF dredged
at $10,000/AF
and underdrain
repairs
-
100 acres
(existing
sprayfields)
at
$15,000/ac
80 acres at
$15,000/ac
includes
irrigation
improvements
*Land acquisition costs were not escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023).
Costs escalated to the midpoint of construction (2023)
Filename.ppt/12
// Summary – Land Application Scenarios
12 Master Plan Plan B
WWTP Upgrades WWTP Upgrades + outfall to Sutter
Creek
Effluent land discharge Effluent land discharge and
Seasonal Surface Water discharge
New Ione Canal Reservoir and
piping (7,200 LF) construction
ARSA pipeline (7,900 LF)
replacement
44 AF Dredged from Henderson
Reservoir + Potential Outlet Repairs
157 AF Dredged from Henderson
Reservoir + Underdrain Repair
Land acquisition – 100 ac + Ione
Canal Reservoir
Land acquisition – 100 ac
121 ac new sprayfields needed 80 ac new sprayfields needed Cost: $63.6M Cost: $38.7M
Filename.ppt/13
// Gap Analysis • Water balance • Condition assessment WWTP and pipelines • Unit cost verification Dredging Henderson − $25,400/AF (Master Plan) − $10,000/AF (Plan B) Land acquisition • Sutter Creek flows to support seasonal discharge of secondary
effluent
13 ARSA pipeline
Filename.ppt/14
Project Funding Alternatives
Filename.ppt/15
Funding opportunities: Low-interest loans or Grant funding • Federal/state and local funding opportunities available Planning, design, research, and construction
Highly competitive requiring project/project purpose to closely match funding program objective/requirements
Funding program must coincide with project term (“readiness to proceed”) Most low interest loans and grants are reimbursements (not cash up front) Application process can be time-consuming and costly
• Grants:
Require a minimum cost share by the project sponsor (in-kind donations maybe applicable match)
Filename.ppt/16
Contemplating low-interest loans or grant funding?
• Pursue planning, design and/or construction financing Under planning effort develop required documentation for construction financing
• Identify project “hooks” to meet intent of funding programs:
−Project Purpose - Disadvantaged Community (DACs)
−Regional Benefit/Consolidation - Risk/Resiliency
−Energy/Water Efficiency - Flood protection
• Key to securing funding
Identify project elements, benefits, and opportunities to enhance project Planning ahead, strong project description/packaging and project “readiness to proceed”
Filename.ppt/17
Potential Grant and Low Interest Loan Opportunities
• SWRCB
− Clean Water SRF Fund*
− Small Community Clean Water/WW
Funding*
− Water Recycling Fund
• USDA
− Water and Waste Disposal Loan/Grant
Program
− Rural Development Rural Utilities
Service Guaranteed and Direct Loan
and Grants
• Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Program
• EDA Public Works and Development
Facilities Program
• Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
(ISRF)
• EPA - Water Infrastructure Finance
Innovation Act (WIFIA)*
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation*
− Title XVI Water Reclamation
− Water Marketing
− Drought Projects
• U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
• National Rural Water Funding
• Other (FEMA, Dept. of Energy,…)
• AWIA 2018/2020
Federal Funding State Funding
Filename.ppt/18
// Federal Funding Programs
18 Program
Agency Type Requirements
Water Infrastructure
Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) EPA Loan
• Small community projects min
project cost $5M
• Provides 49% financing
• 35 year loan term;5yr defer
Water & Waste
Disposal Loan & Grant
Program USDA Grant/Loan
• <10,000 population
• Interest rate vary (1.25%)
• 40 year loan term; small grant
funding
• Can not use DB Delivery
NRWA Revolving Loan
Fund
National Rural Water
Association Loan
• <10,000 population
• Short-term repairs, small
projects, pre-development cost
• Max $100,000 or 75% cost)
• 10 year loan term
• 3% interest
Filename.ppt/19
// Federal Funding Programs
19 Program
Agency Type Requirements
Public Works and
Economic
Adjustment
Assistance
Programs
Dept. of Commerce Grant
• Funding up to $3,000,000 or 50% of project
cost based on job development
• $10,000/permanent job
• Requires economic impact statement, A&E
Procurement, federal cross cutters
Community
Development Block
Grant Programs
(CDBG)
Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
Grant
• Benefit low to moderate income in cities of
fewer than 50,000 people
• Up to $1.5 million
Title XVI/WIIN Water
Reclamation/Reuse US Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
• Up to $20M (requires match funding)
• Feasibility Study
• Recycled Water Projects
WaterSMART Water
Marketing Strategy
Grants
US Bureau of
Reclamation Grant
• $200K (2 year) or $400K (3 year)
• Planning activities to develop water
marketing strategy to establish or expand
water markets
Filename.ppt/20
// State Funding Programs
20 Program Agency Type Requirements
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
(CWSRF)
State Water
Resources Control
Board (SWRCB)
Loan
• Wastewater treatment, transmission,
distribution system, recycled water, etc
• Low interest (0.9%); 30-year loan term
• Green Project Reserve (up to $4m grant)
• Federal Cross Cutters
Small Community Clean
Water/Wastewater
(SCWW) Funding SWRCB Grant/Loan
• Small communities <6,000 or expanded
small communities (<20,000)
• DAC (<80% MHI)
• Grant: $6M; Up to $10M if can break up
project (phases, ww vs collection, et.)
• Low interest loans (0.9%); 30 year
Water Recycling Funding
(WRF) Program –
Planning and
Construction Grants
SWRCB Grant
• For recycled water projects
• Prop 1 grant funding is fully or close to
allocated; however may have some DAC
funding
Filename.ppt/21
// State Funding Programs
21 Program Agency Type Requirements
Infrastructure State
Revolving Fund (ISRF) CA Infrastructure and
Economic
Development Bank
Loan
• Variety of infrastructure and economic
development projects including WWTP
Improvements, flood control, public
safety
• Loans from $50,000 up to $25M
• 30 year loan term
Filename.ppt/22
Potential Funding Strategies
100% Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF) Funding
• Low Interest Loan Financing (FY 2021 0.9% interest/30 years) • $6M grant but possible to secure up to $10M grant
• Considerations: Federal Cross Cutter Requirements
100% USDA Funding • Low interest loan financing (1.25%; 40 year loan term) • Grant funding would be dependent on MHI
• Considerations:
• Program will not fund DB project delivery
• USDA has limited funding capacity (annual cap is $30- $40M); would require national approval
Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF) /USDA Funding
• CWSRF grant funding up to $10M
• USDA Low Interest Loan Financing (perhaps small grant) • Considerations:
• Program will not fund DB project delivery
• USDA has limited funding capacity (annual cap is $30- $40M); would require national approval
WIFIA & Small Community Clean
Water/WW (SRF)/USDA
49% WIFIA and 51% SRF/USDA Financing
WIFIA is competitive; low demand on program for DAC projects 22 Filename.ppt/23
Next Steps and Action Items
Filename.ppt/24
// Next Steps and Action Items
• Next Steps
Project Size – $40M to $50M
Option 1 – Verify Plan B Assumptions and NPV Analysis Option 2 – Move ahead with Project Alternative 1.1.4 – Tertiary Facility with Sutter Creek Discharge
Select Funding Options to Pursue
• Review Action Items
24 Review Existing
System
Information and
I/I Reduction
Potential
Develop Flow
Monitoring
Program
Monitor Flow
Winter 2021/22
I/I Mitigation TM
Input for Project
Alternative
Selection
Task 11
Wastewater Collection
System Evaluation
Task 10
Funding Assistance
Meet with
Funding
Agencies
Understand
Potential
Funding
Options
Funding
Alternatives TM
Input for Rate
Study/Overall
Cost Model
Task 12
Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal System Planning
Task 13
Develop Cash
Flow Curves
Develop Cash
Flow Curves
Cash Flow
Curves
$20M & $45M
Input for Rate
Study/Overall
Cost Model
• If I/I can be reduced, then tertiary
plant may be an option.
• If it cannot be reduced, then we
evaluate Plan 2B in more detail
(i.e., release Task 12).
Perform Water
Quality Sampling
Seasonal
Effluent Quality
Data
Input for
Regional Board
Discussions
City of Sutter Creek Wastewater
Treatment Plant Upgrade Project
OA Services Rescoping Roadmap
May 12, 2021
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
JUNE 28, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
35 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Update regarding smoke testing
Recommendation: For information and staff direction.
4. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Review Scope of 2022 Wastewater Financial Plan
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
6. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
JULY 12, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
33 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
4. Review Scope of 2022 Wastewater Financial Plan
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
JULY 26, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
33 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
4. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Review Scope of 2022 Wastewater Financial Plan
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
AUGUST 9, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
33 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Sewer Ordinance
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
4. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
AUGUST 30, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
33 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Sewer Ordinance
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
4. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
SEWER COMMITTEE
AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
4:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY CENTER
33 CHURCH ST.
Sutter Creek, California
1. Call to Order - 4:00 P.M.
2. Public Matters not on the Agenda
This is an opportunity for the public to comment on items that are not on the Committee agenda.
3. Sewer Ordinance
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
4. Review Capital Components of Wastewater Plant
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
5. Sewer Capacity
Recommendation: For discussion and staff direction.
Adjournment
* Attachment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you are a disabled person and you need a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, please contact City Hall staff at (209) 267-5647 or (209) 267-0639 (fax).
City of Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant
4 Year Asset Repair/Replacement Strategy
Asset Description Field Notes and Observations Condition Rating Functional Description Failure Modes 1Consequence 2 Life Expectancy (yrs) --
(year) installed/last repaired 3MTBF/LC 4
Failure Score 5Risk 6Criticality 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 Recommended Action Estimated Costs 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Asset Description Replacement Status Replacement Window (yrs.) Condition Rating Functional Description Estimated Costs 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Collection/Influent and Headworks Collection/Influent and Headworks Mechanical Barscreen
Wet components replaced 3 years
ago; drive motor was not replaced Fair
Removes inorganic
material from influent
Motor Failure,
power outage,
drive system
failure, bearings 3 25 4 0.16 0.48 1 3 Inspection by mfr $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Mechanical Barscreen Multiple repairs have been done
to keep it operational. Needs to
be replaced.
Fair
Removes inorganic
material from influent
$175,000 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $50,000 $50,000 $0
Influent Channel Good Moves water to
rotoscreen
structural failure,
cracks 9 50 1 0.02 0.18 1 3 Inspection by Engr $2,000 $0 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 Influent Channel/Influent Sampler Need to replace Influent Sampler Good Moves water to rotoscreen $11,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $6,000 $0 $0 $0 Rag Screw Conveyor
Good Conveys screened material
to dump bin
Shaft and
bearings 2 25 5 0.20 0.4 1 3 Inspection by mfr $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Rag Screw Conveyor Stainless components good.
Needs new liner.
Good Conveys screened material
to dump bin $14,000 $14,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Influent Flow Doppler Meter/V-notch weir Good
Measures flow accurately
up to 1000 gpm
Power, ragging on
weir, out of
calibration 3 20 2 0.10 0.3 1 3 Calibration $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Influent Flow Doppler Meter/V-notch weir
None planned
Good
Measures flow accurately
up to 1000 gpm
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Roto Strainers Good
Removes inorganic and
organic material, primary
treatment removes
approximately 30% BOD;
unit capacity 800 gpm
Power, motor,
bearing, doctor
blade wear, buck
seal
4 40 4 0.10 0.4 1 3
Inspection by mfr - Need new doctor
blades $2,000 $8,000 $0 $2,000 $0 $0 $0
Roto Strainers
Two run well. One with barrel
replacement needs to be finished.
Fourth one is damaged with big
hole in the barrel. Needs barrel
replaced.
Good
Removes inorganic and
organic material, primary
treatment removes
approximately 30% BOD;
unit capacity 800 gpm $50,000 $0 $5,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Roto Strainer Screw Conveyors Fair Conveys material from rotostrainer to dump bin
motor failure,
strutural 2 25 5 0.20 0.4 1 3 Inspection by mfr $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Roto Strainer Screw Conveyors Stainless components good.
Needs new liner.
Fair Conveys material from
rotostrainer to dump bin $6,800 $6,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Incline Screw Conveyors
2 25 5 0.20 0.4 1 3 Inspection by mfr $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Incline Screw Conveyors Stainless components good.
Needs new liner. $5,200 $5,200 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Storage Reservoir (ESR) New
Store flows that exceed 1.4
mgd
Liner breach,
overflow weir
10 80 4 0.05 0.5 1 3 Inspect liner $1,500 $0 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Storage Reservoir (ESR)
Reservoir liner in good shape.
Need new trash pump and hoses
for high flow returns.
New
Store flows that exceed
1.4 mgd
$14,800 $0 $6,000 $6,800 $0 $0 $0 $0
ESR Aerators New Aerate pond to control
odors
power, motor,
bearing 2 25 2 0.08 0.16 1 3 Inspection by mfr $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 ESR Aerators
Need new Aerator. Fair Aerate pond to control
odors $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Influent Isolation Valve to Trickling Filter (V#3) Fair Isolates rotoscreen effluent to TF
Frozen, structural
2 50 4 0.08 0.16 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Influent Isolation Valve to Trickling Filter (V#3)
None planned Fair Isolates rotoscreen
effluent to TF $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Screened Influent Isolation Valve to ESR (V#5) Fair Isolates rotoscreen effluent to ESR
Frozen, structural
2 50 4 0.08 0.16 1 Run to Failure $800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Screened Influent Isolation Valve to ESR (V#5)
None planned Fair Isolates rotoscreen
effluent to ESR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Agitation Air Compressor 3 Run to Failure $500 $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 Agitation Air Compressor $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Trickling Filter Trickling Filter
Trickling Filter Distribution Arms
Drive requires replacement with
VFD
Fair Distributes WW evenly to
the TF
Power, Motor,
Structural
10 25 4 0.16 1.6 3 2 Inspection by mfr $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Trickling Filter Distribution Arms and Tower Arms Replaced August 2017 -
Motorized Tower should be
installed with VFD
Arms - New Distributes WW evenly to
the TF $65,000 $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $30,000 $0 $0
Trickling Filter Media
Fair
Remove organics, and
BOD; max capacity 0.96
mgd
Power, motor,
sprayers, media,
underdrain, recirc
pumps 10 50 1 0.02 0.2 1 3 No action $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Trickling Filter Media - None planned.
Fair
Remove organics, and
BOD; max capacity 0.96
mgd $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Recirculation Pumps R Thermal Imaging required
Good Recirc flows up to 4 times
influent to TF
Power, motor,
shaft, bearings
8 25 4 0.16 1.28 3 2
Annual inspection and adjust action for
current condition $2,500 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Recirculation Pumps R Both pumps need replacing. Using
emergency pumps for this
operation. Need to change.
Good Recirc flows up to 4 times
influent to TF $12,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Secondary Pumps S Thermal Imaging required Good
Conveys flow from TF to
clarifiers
Power, motor,
shaft, bearings 8 25 4 0.16 1.28 3 2
Annual inspection and adjust action for
current condition $2,500 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Secondary Pumps S None planned. All just rebuilt. Good Conveys flow from TF to
clarifiers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Pumps E Thermal Imaging required Good
Moves water from ESR to
TF or to the Clarifiers
Power, motor,
shaft, bearings 5 25 4 0.16 0.8 2 2
Annual inspection and adjust action for
current condition $2,500 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Pumps E One just repaired. One needs to
be replaced. Good
Moves water from ESR to
TF or to the Clarifiers $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Shower and Eyewash
Good Provides potable water
during a hazardous event
source water,
frozen pipes,
mechanical, clogs,
piping 10 20 5 0.25 2.5 4 1 Monthly inspections $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Shower and Eyewash None planned Good Provides potable water
during a hazardous event $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Secondary Pump Station Bubbler Control Panel Fair
Pumps station control,
level indication
Power, tubing,
compressor 5 25 5 0.2 1 2 2
Annual inspection and adjust action for
current condition $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Secondary Pump Station Bubbler Control Panel None planned Fair Pumps station control,
level indication $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return Valve From ESR (V#8)
Unknown
Isolates ESR and the E
Pump station - used to
drain ESR
Frozen, structural
5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Return Valve From ESR (V#8) None planned Unknown
Isolates ESR and the E
Pump station - used to
drain ESR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Return Valve From TF to Emergency Pumps (V#7) Unknown
Allows TF return to the E
pump station - adds
operational flexibility and
redundancy for recirc or
secondary influent
Frozen, structural
5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Return Valve From TF to Emergency Pumps (V#7)
Valve has failed. Needs to be
replaced.
Unknown
Allows TF return to the E
pump station - adds
operational flexibility and
redundancy for recirc or
secondary influent $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Pump Discharge. Isolation Valve to Dist. Box (V#12) Unknown Provides operational
flexibility to E pump
station to divert flow to
recirc or secondary
clarifiers
Frozen, structural
5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Pump Discharge. Isolation Valve to Dist. Box (V#12) None planned Unknown
Provides operational
flexibility to E pump
station to divert flow to
recirc or secondary
clarifiers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Pump Discharge. Isolation Valve to Recirc. Line (V#11) Unknown
Provides operational
flexibility to E pump and S
Pump stations to divert
flow to recirc or secondary
clarifiers
Frozen, structural
5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Pump Discharge. Isolation Valve to Recirc. Line (V#11) None planned
Unknown
Provides operational
flexibility to E pump and S
Pump stations to divert
flow to recirc or secondary
clarifiers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Secondary Pump Discharge Valve to ESR (V#10)
Unknown
Provides operational
flexibility to E pump and S
Pump stations to divert
flow to ESR
Frozen, structural
5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Secondary Pump Discharge Valve to ESR (V#10) None planned Unknown
Provides operational
flexibility to E pump and S
Pump stations to divert
flow to ESR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Secondary System Secondary System
Distribution Box
Requires full replacement
Poor
Provides wide spot in pipe
prior to clarifiers
Structural
8 50 4 0.08 0.64 2 3 Monitor and repair as needed $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Distribution Box
Needs to be replaced but in
interim will be lined along with
Contact Chamber
Poor
Provides wide spot in pipe
prior to clarifiers
$2,000 $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ferric Chloride Feed Pump
No action required
Good
Injects Ferric Chloride to
improve sludge quality
and settling
Power Outage,
motor failure,
breached line 7 5 1 0.2 1.4 3 3 Run to Failure and replace with spare $300 $0 $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 Ferric Chloride Feed Pump and Tank
None planned for pump. Funds
for new tank should be available Good
Injects Ferric Chloride to
improve sludge quality
and settling $6,500 $0 $3,500 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Inlet Gate to #1 Clarigester (V#14)
Requires full replacement
Poor
Allows TF flow from
Distribution box to
Clarigester-1
Structural, gate
seals
10 25 4 0.16 1.6 3 1 Inspection by mfr $6,500 $6,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Inlet Gate to #1 Clarigester (V#14)
Replace after inspection
Poor
Allows TF flow from
Distribution box to
Clarigester-1 Part of Drive Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Inlet Gate to #2 Clarigester (V#13)
Requires full replacement
Poor
Allows TF flow from
Distribution box to
Clarigester-1
Structural, gate
seals
10 25 4 0.16 1.6 3 1 Inspection by mfr $6,500 $6,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Inlet Gate to #2 Clarigester (V#13)
Replace after inspection
Poor
Allows TF flow from
Distribution box to
Clarigester-1 Part of Drive replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Drive and supporting mechanisms
Requires Mfr Inspection
Fair
Drive moves mechanisms
in both clarifier and
digester compartments
Power, motor,
bearing, shaft,
worm gear,
transfer port seal 10 25 4 0.16 1.6 3 1 Inspection by mfr $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Drive and supporting mechanisms
Replace after inspection
Fair
Drive moves mechanisms
in both clarifier and
digester compartments
$367,000 $0 $167,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #1 Scum Pump and Valves Fair
Conveys scum to digester,
controls supernatant
levels and returns to
headworks
Power, motor,
impeller, bearings,
frozen valves,
corrosion 5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Scum Pump and Valves
Needs to be replaced
Fair
Conveys scum to digester,
controls supernatant
levels and returns to
headworks $3,500 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #2 Drive and supporting mechanisms
Requires Mfr Inspection
Fair
Drive moves mechanisms
in both clarifier and
digester compartments
Power, motor,
bearing, shaft,
worm gear,
transfer port seal 10 25 4 0.16 1.6 3 1 Inspection by mfr $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #2 Drive and supporting mechanisms
Needs to be replaced
Fair
Drive moves mechanisms
in both clarifier and
digester compartments
$367,000 $0 $167,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #2 Scum Pump and Valves Fair
Conveys scum to digester,
controls supernatant
levels and returns to
headworks
Power, motor,
impeller, bearings,
frozen valves,
corrosion 5 50 4 0.08 0.4 1 3 Run to Failure $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #2 Scum Pump and Valves
Needs to be replaced
Fair
Conveys scum to digester,
controls supernatant
levels and returns to
headworks $3,500 $3,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Shower and Eyewash Fair
Provides potable water
during a hazardous event
source water,
frozen pipes,
mechanical, clogs,
piping 10 20 5 0.25 2.5 4 1 Monthly inspections $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Shower and Eyewash
None planned
Fair
Provides potable water
during a hazardous event
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Disinfection and Effluent/Outfall Disinfection and Effluent/Outfall Overhead Crane Good provides lifting leverage
for heavy equipment
power, motor,
control set 2 25 3 0.12 0.24 1 3 Annual inspection $500 $0 $0 $500 $0 $0 $0 Overhead Crane None planned Good provides lifting leverage for heavy equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CL2 Metering Pumps Good
meters sodium
hypochlorite to secondary
effluent
power, control
panel, piping,
10 25 5 0.2 2 4 1 Budget and replace as needed $500 $500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 CL2 Metering Pumps
Need to be replaced in approx 5
years Good
meters sodium
hypochlorite to secondary
effluent $8,000 $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $0
Hypochlorite Tank Good 10 20 3 0.15 1.5 3 2 Clean and inspect by mfr $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0Hypochlorite Tank Funds for new tank should be available
Good $7,500 $0 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $0
Emergency Shower and Eyewash Good
Provides potable water
during a hazardous event
source water,
frozen pipes,
mechanical, clogs,
piping 10 20 5 0.25 2.5 4 1 Monthly inspections $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Shower and Eyewash
None planned
Good
Provides potable water
during a hazardous event
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CL2 Injection Station Good injects HOCL into effluent
stream
clogged injector,
corrosion 10 25 3 0.12 1.2 3 2 Inspection by mfr $1,500 $0 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 CL2 Injection Station Need to replace in approx 5 years Good injects HOCL into effluent stream $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 Effluent Flow Meter Good 5 20 3 0.15 0.75 2 2 Annual calibration $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Effluent Flow Meter Needs to be replaced Good $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Chlorine Contact Chamber
Requires structural improvement,
block wall is fragile. Suggest a
structural engineer evaluate
system
Poor
conveys disinfected
effluent to achieve
efficient contact time
structural
10 50 1 0.02 0.2 4 1
Inspection and recommendation by
structural engineer $3,000 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Chlorine Contact Chamber
Needs to be cleaned and relined
with Thoroseal every 2 to 3 years.
Walls to be repaired by plant staff.
(Completed in 2022.)
Poor
conveys disinfected
effluent to achieve
efficient contact time
$18,000 $18,000 $0 $0 $18,000 $0 $0 $18,000
Sludge Handling/Dewatering Facility Sludge Handling/Dewatering Facility Sludge Pump Assess condition every two years Good Pumps digested solids to the screw press
Power, motor,
bearing, impeller 5 25 5 0.2 1 2 2
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Pump Needs to be replaced Good Pumps digested solids to the screw press $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Sump Assess condition every two years Good Pumps digested solids to the screw press
Power, motor,
bearing, impeller 5 25 5 0.2 1 2 2
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $5,000 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Sump None Planned Good Pumps digested solids to
the screw press $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Flow Meter Assess condition every two years Good Measures flow from digesters
Power, sensors
3 20 3 0.15 0.45 1 3
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $1,000 $0 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Flow Meter None planned Good Measures flow from
digesters $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Polymer Blending System
Assess condition every two years
Good Blends polymer into
digested sludge
Power, motor,
bearing, mixing
chamber 5 20 5 0.25 1.25 3 2
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $1,000 $0 $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Polymer Blending System Needs new metering pump Good Blends polymer into digested sludge $3,000 $0 $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Screw Press Assess condition every two years New Dries solids to approximately 17% DS
Power, motor,
bearing, 5 25 3 0.12 0.6 2 3
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Screw Press None planned New Dries solids to
approximately 17% DS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Conveyor Assess condition every two years New Conveys dried sludge to dump bin
Power, motor,
bearing, shaft 5 20 3 0.15 0.75 2 3
Monitor condition and replace when
needed $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sludge Conveyor None planned New Conveys dried sludge to dump bin $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Waste Gas System Waste Gas System
Clarigester #1 Gas Dome
Requires Mfr Inspection Fair Collects digester gas for
burners
structural
8 25 4 0.16 1.28 3 1 Inspection by mfr
Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Gas Dome
Review after inspection Fair Collects digester gas for
burners Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #1 Gas Dome Condensate Drain Valve
Requires Mfr Inspection Fair Relieves condensate from
gas dome
frozen
5 25 5 0.2 1 2 1 Inspection by mfr
Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Gas Dome Condensate Drain Valve Review after inspection Fair Relieves condensate from
gas dome Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #2 Gas Dome
Requires Mfr Inspection Fair Collects digester gas for
burners
structural
8 25 4 0.16 1.28 3 1 Inspection by mfr
Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #2 Gas Dome
Review after inspection Fair Collects digester gas for
burners Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #2 Gas Dome Condensate Drain Valve
Requires Mfr Inspection Fair Relieves condensate from
gas dome
frozen
5 25 5 0.2 1 2 1 Inspection by mfr
Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #2 Gas Dome Condensate Drain Valve Review after inspection Fair Relieves condensate from
gas dome Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0
Waste Gas Line Fair pipe break,
corrosion 10 25 5 0.2 2 4 1 Inspection by mfr
Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Gas Line
Review after inspection Fair Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Gas Regulator Good 10 20 3 0.15 1.5 3 1 Inspection by mfr Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Gas Regulator Needs to be replaced Good $10,000 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Gas Burner Fair 10 20 3 0.15 1.5 3 1 Inspection by mfr Included in the inspection for the
Clarigester $0 $0 $0 $0 Waste Gas Burner None planned Fair $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electrical/SCADA Electrical/SCADA
Clarigester #1 Control Panel
Requires Mfr Inspection Good power and controls to
Clarigester
power, relays
8 20 4 0.2 1.6 3 2 Thermal imaging inspection $300 $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #1 Control Panel Needs to be replaced - Review
After Inspection
Good power and controls to
Clarigester Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Clarigester #2 Control Panel
Requires Mfr Inspection Fair power and controls to
Clarigester
power, relays
8 20 4 0.2 1.6 3 2 Thermal imaging inspection $300 $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 Clarigester #2 Control Panel Needs to be replaced - Review
After Inspection
Fair power and controls to
Clarigester Review after Inspection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Main Plant MCC Thermal Imaging required New provides main power to all PLCs
power, relays,
breakers 10 20 4 0.2 2 4 1 Thermal imaging inspection $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Main Plant MCC None planned New provides main power to all PLCs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Auto Transfer Switch
Thermal Imaging required
New
transfers power
distribution to emergency
generator during outage
unit mechanisms
10 20 4 0.2 2 4 1 Replace immediately ARCB $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Auto Transfer Switch
None planned
New
transfers power
distribution to emergency
generator during outage $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Screw Press Control Panel
Thermal Imaging required Good power and controls to unit power, relays 5 20 4 0.2 1 2 2 Thermal imaging inspection $300 $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 Screw Press Control Panel Needs to be reparied or replaced.
Backlight not working. Good power and controls to unit
$5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
S/E Pump Control Panel Requires electrical inspection Poor power and controls to unit power, relays 8 20 4 0.2 1.6 3 2 Thermal imaging inspection $300 $0 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 S/E Pump Control Panel None planned Poor power and controls to unit $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Emergency Generator/Emergency Power Fair provides emergency power to plant
motor, fuel,
battery 10 20 4 0.2 2 4 1 Replace immediately ARCB $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Emergency Generator/Emergency Power Needs to be replaced. Past limits of Air Pollution regulations
Fair provides emergency
power to plant $60,000 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RTU
Fair
remote communication to
operators of critical issues
power, relays,
communication
line 10 20 4 0.2 2 4 1 Monitor, test and replace as required. $300 $300 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RTU None planned
Fair
remote communication to
operators of critical issues
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal $23,000 $17,400 $20,700 $22,800 $0 $0 $0 Subtotal $112,000 $408,500 $364,300 $438,500 $87,500 $50,000 $18,000 Cost Contingency 30% $6,900 $5,220 $6,210 $6,840 $0 $0 $0 Cost Contingency 30% $33,600 $122,550 $109,290 $131,550 $26,250 $15,000 $5,400 Total RR Budget $29,900 $22,620 $26,910 $29,640 $0 $0 $0 Total RR Budget $145,600 $531,050 $473,590 $570,050 $113,750 $65,000 $23,400 FY 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 FY 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2025/26 2026/27 2027/28 2028/29 Notes:
1 Consequence is a ranking of how crucial the asset function is to ensure total system function to avoid realizing risk to public safety, negative impacts to the environment, regulatory impacts, and cost to the City. 2 Life expectancy of assets is an estimate of the expected life based on experience, annecdotal information, and limted industry data. 3 Mean Time Between Failure per asset life expectancy is a an estimated value based on annecdotal information and limited industry data. 4 Failure score is the product of the MTBF/LC and the asset Life Expectancy. 5 Risk is typically defined by the the product of frequency of failure and the consequence of failure. In this case the Failure Scoe and the Consequence. 6 Criticality is the result of the direct value of risk. In this case, criticality values were designated between 1 and 4. "1" desginated as low risk and "4" designated as high risk. 1 Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
“Servicing Amador City, Martell, & Sutter Creek”
STAFF REPORT
TO: ARSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MEETING DATE: October 28, 022
FROM: Amy Gedney and Frank Splendorio
SUBJECT: Status Update Regarding Ongoing Litigation Against City of Ione RECOMMENDATION:
Receive Informational Update and Status Report re Lawsuit Against Ione.
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in March of 2022, Ione has, with little exception, refused to accept wastewater from ARSA. Ione complained that there was a hydrogen sulfide smell. To attempt to alleviate the odor, ARSA started sodium chloride injections, but Ione shut down the water again. Shutting down the system results in the build up of hydrogen sulfide gases.
In May 2022, ARSA requested that Ione receive discharges from Preston Reservoir again.
Ione, however, claimed that that the water smelled and refused to take the full amount. While ARSA devised a new setup to treat the water in Preston Reservoir, Ione refused to let the water run long enough to allow the new setup to work properly. Ione gave no notice and stopped the discharge again.
In June 2022, as the days became hotter, Ione asked for water from ARSA from Preston. ARSA accordingly expedited payment for a new chemical in order to eliminate any odors from the water.
After delivering five-acre feet (or 1,629,255 gallons) of water, Ione again shut off the water. In the previous year, ARSA discharged 20 acre feet (or 6,517,020 gallons) to Ione in April, and Ione made no complaints about the smell after 10 acre feet (or 3,258,510 gallons) was delivered. .
Recognizing that continuing to send water to Preston Reservoir could be problematic, in June staff stopped sending water to Preston Reservoir for use at the golf course and began irrigating at the Hoskins Ranch. (Previously we were sending water to Preston so that there would be 300 ac feet available for use at Castle Oaks golf course.)
On multiple occasions from March through August 2022, ARSA requested that Ione receive water from ARSA so that Preston Reservoir is emptied before the end of the irrigation season, and the beginning the rainy season, in order to ensure that Preston Reservoir does not spill over during the coming rainy season.
The table below outlines how many acre feet per month Ione has taken. 2 Table 1. Amount of water taken by Ione March – September.
Month Acre Feet Taken Acre Feet Remaining in
Preston Reservoir
March 4.9 148.6
April 0.2 125.6
May 5.2 112.1
June 15.3 111
July 0 115.3
August 1.5 120.5
September 2.8 121.6
TOTAL 30
ARSA staff continued to request that Ione take water. On August 31, 2022, Ione refused to accept any wastewater from ARSA. On September 8, 2022, ARSA provided written notice to Ione’s Interim City Manager, that Ione’s refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the Wastewater Agreement. After ignoring the September 8, 2022, correspondence, Ione again began accepting wastewater from Preston Reservoir on September 19, 2022, only taking 400,000 gallons (or 1.22 acre feet) on that day, which was reduced to only 200,000 gallons (or 0.61 acre feet) on September 20, 2022 due to purported water quality issues concerning the wastewater.
Due to the uncertainty and risk of Preston having too much water heading into the rainy season, on September 20, 2022, ARSA legal counsel filed a complaint against Ione. On September 21, 2022, Ione staff was served and immediately notified their operator to cease taking water from ARSA.
On September 23, 2022, ARSA sent another letter to Ione imploring Ione to cease refusing to accept wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir before the irrigation season ends in order to reduce the risk of Preston Reservoir spilling over during the upcoming rainy season. Ione ignored that letter and ARSA then filed its Temporary Restraining Order, TRO, against Ione.
In its TRO, ARSA’s Engineer showed, based on his modeling, that Preston would spill over in the April timeframe if certain rain conditions occurred and Ione continued to refuse to take water.
It is important to note that, during all times mentioned above, the only complaints ARSA received were due to water and/or alleged permit violations. Both of these issues the Regional Board said did not justify Ione’s refusal to accept wastewater as noted below.
DISCUSSION:
Complaint Against Ione
On September 20, 2022, ARSA filed a complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the City of Ione and CDCR. (See Attachment 1.)
The lawsuit was premised on the fact that Ione’s failure to accept ARSA’s wastewater from Preston Reservoir — in violation of its contractual obligation to do so — is unjustified and an abject dereliction of its duty without basic regard of the health and safety of the public. Such failure created an imminent, public health crisis that require an emergency order from the Court to force them to take the wastewater from Preston as their contract requires. 3 TRO Granted
ARSA’s request for an emergency order has already been twice vindicated by the Amador County Superior Court. On September 29, 2022, ARSA filed a Temporary Restraining Order against Ione. (See Attachment 2.) The trial court immediately granted ARSA’s TRO on that day (Attachment 3).
1 Preliminary Injunction Granted
On October 10th, after considering Ione’s opposition to the TRO, the Court again ruled in ARSA’s favor, issuing an order and preliminary injunction requiring Ione to immediately accept 500,000 gallons of wastewater per day from Preston Reservoir for 30 days, for a total of 15 million gallons. (See Attachment 4 and 5, Ione’s Opposition and ARSA’s Reply to Opposition, respectively.)
That Order (see attachment 6) which represents the second time in this lawsuit that Ione was ordered to accept ARSA’s water, became effective October 11, 2022.
This is a critical fact, because in granting a TRO and then the preliminary injunction mandating that Ione take the water, the Court (twice) was required to find that (a) ARSA has a greater likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its lawsuit against Ione, and that (b) the irreparable harm that would result from Ione not taking the water (flooding of wastewater from Preston Reservoir into neighborhoods) outweighs any claimed or supposed harm Ione has alleged.
Regional Board’s September 9, 2022 Letter
It is worth noting that on September 9, 2022, prior to the lawsuit being filed, the Regional Board had already issued correspondence to ARSA, Ione, and the Golf Course addressing the balancing of harms issue and stating the overflowing of Preston is a far worse outcome. (Attachment 7.) The Regional Board’s September 9, 2022, letter declared that “the capacity issues at Preston [Reservoir] are presenting an even greater risk to water quality and public health than potential nuisance concerns related to the treatment of wastewater from Preston.” So, all told, by October 10, 2022, the Regional Board and two Judges at Amador County Superior Court had declared Ione not taking the water is an imminent, public health harm, greater than any alleged harm Ione may have contended.
Ione’s Request to Modify Court’s Order
Notwithstanding this Order, tending before the Court now is Ione’s ex parte application to modify the preliminary injunction to reduce the total gallons per day to 200,000, or to condition Ione’s acceptance of 500,000 gallons per day on ARSA’s installation of a surface pump at Preston Reservoir. (See Attachment 8.)
Even if we were to assume the hydrogen sulfide condition is a valid excuse, it would only cover Ione’s noncompliance for three days – October 18 through 20, 2022. Indeed, Ione has offered no 1 However, Ione immediately appealed the TRO on procedural grounds and it was granted because the Judge ruled in ARSA’s favor without first considering an opposition by Ione. 4 justification for its failure to comply with the Order between October 11 and 14, 2022, or since October 20, 2022.
ARSA’s Opposition to Ione’s Request to Modify the Court’s Order In our opposition to the request for modification to the TRO (Attachment 9), we show the hydrogen sulfide condition at Ione’s treatment plant is also not a valid excuse for Ione’s violation of the Order from October 18 through 20, 2022, or any other period of time. According to an incident report, Ione’s fire department took gas readings at two top vent pipes to test the amount of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). These readings showed H2S at only 1 part per million (PPM), but detected a combustible/explosive range above the lower explosion limit (LEL) of 10% at 13-14%.
While Ione’s fire department’s readings showed similar results on October 19, 2022, the combustible/explosive range dropped below the LEL to only 3% on October 20, 2022. The amount of H2S, however, increased to at least 200 PPM at that time. The oxygen levels from October 18 to 20, 2022, nevertheless remained constant, at 20.8%, 20.2%, and 20.8%.
Hydrogen sulfide is a common condition that exists in sewer and wastewater systems. It is a combustible and toxic gas that forms within sewer collection systems when the organic matter in the raw sewage decomposes and is caused by the lack of oxygen in the water over longer periods of time.
Setting aside the cause of the hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen sulfide does not generally pose a health hazard when it is properly monitored and mitigated. To address the presence of hydrogen sulfide, including at the levels detected by Ione’s fire department between October 18 and 20, 2022, ventilation blowers are typically used to force air into the confined space at high enough volumes to exchange the air to dilute the concentration to a nonhazardous level. Indeed, in most cases, simply ventilating the utility access hole can reduce the levels of the gas present to a safe level for entry. Hydrogen sulfide may also be treated through the use of chemicals, including chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, or other products such as hydrogen peroxide-based oxidants.
To date, Ione has provided no evidence whatsoever reflecting any attempts to treat the hydrogen sulfide. Ione has instead simply shut down the system after detecting conditions that are common in wastewater systems and has elected to take no steps to treat the hydrogen sulfide. ARSA has tested the area around the Preston Reservoir for H2S, and no H2S has been detected. The hydrogen sulfide issues identified by Ione thus relate solely to tertiary effluent requirements at their system. These are part of the costs of providing tertiary treatment and therefore must be resolved by Ione as the operator of the tertiary treatment plant.
Ione’s Disobedience of Court’s Order to Take Water
Since October 11th (the effective date of the Order), Ione has chosen a perilous, grossly reckless path, without regard of human life and safety, by willfully disobeying the Court’s order. Instead of doing the right thing, Ione has instead (a) unsuccessfully sought relief from the Court of Appeal, (b) delayed compliance in order to obtain assurances from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) that were already provided, and (c) created excuse after excuse for why it cannot accept wastewater from Preston Reservoir, the latest of which is high levels of hydrogen sulfide that is the result of Ione’s own doing. 5 Meanwhile, aside from a period of roughly five days from October 14 through October 18, 2022, Ione has willfully disobeyed and violated the Order since October 11, 2022.
ARSA’s Contempt Application against Ione
Contempt and sanctions are thus appropriate for Ione’s noncompliance during these time periods.
To that end, ARSA has also just filed contempt papers against Ione. (Attachment 10.) Here, it is beyond controversy that Ione has willfully disobeyed and violated the Order. Although required to accept 500,000 gallons of wastewater per day from Preston Reservoir since October 11, 2022, Ione only accepted water from Preston Reservoir from October 14, 2022, through October 18, 2022. Ione has willfully disobeyed and violated the Order. Ione is able to comply with the Order, and there is no good cause or substantial justification for its failure to do so.
ATTACHMENT 1
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 2 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
Plaintiff AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY (“ARSA”) alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. ARSA is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a California joint powers agency established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Government Code sections 6500, et seq., responsible for providing wastewater conveyance and disposal services to its member agencies: the County of Amador and the Cities of Amador City and Sutter Creek, and located in the County of Amador, California.
2. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CITY OF IONE (“IONE”) is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Amador, California.
3. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION (“CDCR”) is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a state agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and the owner of a series pipelines and reservoirs located in the County of Amador, California.
4. ARSA is unaware of the true names and capacities of those defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20. ARSA is informed and believes and on such basis alleges that these fictitiously named defendants are in some way responsible for the harm sustained by ARSA as alleged in the Complaint. ARSA will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named defendants when ascertained.
5. Defendants IONE, CDCR, and Does 1 through 20 (collectively, “DEFENDANTS”), and each of them, are and were at all times mentioned herein agents, employees, or partners of each other, and, in doing the acts alleged herein, each defendant was acting within the scope of his, her, or its authority as such agent, employee, or partner, with the information and consent of each defendant, and each ratified or approved the conduct of the defendants alleged herein. / / /
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 3 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Wastewater from the City of Sutter Creek, Amador City, and the Martell community is treated by the Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant (“SUTTER CREEK WWTP”), which is owned and operated by the City of Sutter Creek. Secondary effluent from the SUTTER CREEK WWTP is conveyed through a series of pipelines and reservoirs, which make up a wastewater delivery and disposal system known as the “HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.”
7. The HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM is comprised of an upper element and a lower element. The upper HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM generally consists of the area from the outfall of the SUTTER CREEK WWTP to the Preston Youth Correctional Facility. The lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM generally includes the components that lie below Preston Forebay to the outfall of the pipeline that conveys the secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir to IONE. IONE receives wastewater from the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM for tertiary treatment at its Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant (“COWRP”) for irrigation use at the Castle Oaks Golf Course.
8. The HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM is owned by CDCR. Since in or about 1977, CDCR has leased the pipelines and reservoirs that make up the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM to ARSA. A copy of the current lease between ARSA and CDCR, Ground lease No. L2070 (“LEASE”), executed on February 23, 2009, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.
9. Under the LEASE, which does not expire until September 18, 2037, ARSA uses the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM (referred to in the LEASE as the “Premises”) to transport water and wastewater pursuant to a separate agreement between ARSA, CDCR, and IONE, the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System dated September 18, 2007 (“WASTEWATER AGREEMENT”), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the LEASE.
10. The LEASE provides in relevant part the following regarding termination and injunctive relief: “The parties to this Lease hereto recognize that the Premises leased hereunder is part of a wastewater system, regulated under the California Water Code, and that termination of 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 4 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
this Lease is not practicable nor feasible as it would render an essential utility service inoperable, with no alternate means readily available to [CDCR] and [ARSA] to dispose of their effluent that is not in violation of their other permit obligations. Therefore, the parties to this Lease have deleted any reference herein to termination of this Lease for breach, and instead expressly agree that injunctive relief to cure any actual or threatened breach is appropriate, and agree that either party shall be entitled to seek equitable injunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the obligations hereunder. Neither party shall be entitled to defend such action on the basis that injunctive relief is improper, or that monetary damages are adequate.”
11. The LEASE further provides that time is of the essence for each and all of the provisions, covenants, and conditions therein, and that the LEASE may not be modified except by a written instrument duly executed by the parties thereto.
12. Under its express terms, the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT governs the wastewater rights and obligations among ARSA, CDCR, and IONE, as well as the relationship and respective rights between ARSA, CDCR, and IONE with regard to the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
13. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT allows ARSA to annually discharge 650 acre feet of treated wastewater to Preston Reservoir for disposal. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, however, provides that CDCR may annually discharge up to 350 acre feet of treated wastewater to Preston Reservoir, which amount is counted against ARSA’s 650 acre-foot disposal right. CDCR operates the Mule Creek State Prison (“MCSP”), wastewater from which is treated by CDCR at its MCSP Wastewater Treatment Plant (“MCSP WWTP”).
14. Pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, IONE is obligated annually to accept from ARSA/CDCR a combined total of 650 acre feet of secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir. Specifically, IONE must accept up to 95 acre feet of wastewater per month from April through September, and up to 10 acre feet of wastewater per month from October through March, but such limits may be waived by agreement of the parties in the event of an emergency and where necessary for the prevention of environmental damage or civil liabilities attendant to wastewater violations. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT further provides that ARSA and 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 5 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
CDCR will continue to provide effluent from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP for use on the Castle Oaks Golf Course, if such effluent is available.
15. The term of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT is 30 years and will not expire until September 18, 2037, the same date that the LEASE ends. While the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT allows IONE to terminate flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM upon five-years’ written notice, such right cannot be exercised unless IONE and CDCR have resolved how to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course, which includes, but is not limited to, obtaining any necessary water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law.
16. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT also provides that it may be amended only by written instrument signed by all the parties thereto.
17. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT further requires CDCR, IONE, and ARSA to work to obtain all necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations to carry out the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT in compliance with all pertinent Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
18. The parties’ wastewater discharges are regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (“REGIONAL BOARD”). The REGIONAL BOARD’s Water Reclamation Requirements (“WRRs”) Order No. 93-240 (“WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240”) regulates the COWRP and flows thereto from the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM, while the REGIONAL BOARD’s Waste Discharge Requirements (“WDRs”) Order No. R5-2015-0129 (“WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129”) regulates the MCSP WWTP.
19. WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 only permits wastewater treatment and reuse based on the flows to Preston Reservoir through the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM; it does not permit an alternative direct connection from CDCR to the COWRP. WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 also does not recognize CDCR as a named discharger to the COWRP; WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 names only ARSA, IONE, and Portlock International, Ltd. (Castle Oaks Golf Course) as the dischargers.
20. Aside from spray irrigation on land application areas, WDRs ORDER NO. R5- 2015-0129 only permits disposal of wastewater to Preston Reservoir up to the maximum 350 acrefeet allowed under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 6 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
recognizes that “Preston Reservoir serves as a means of conveyance of effluent flows from the [ARSA] system and the [MCSP] WWTP to the City of Ione wastewater disposal system or to the [COWRP] for further treatment and reuse at the Castle Oaks Golf Course (under [WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240]).”
21. On or about July 19, 2017, IONE issued a letter purporting to provide five years’ notice to ARSA to eliminate all flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. Said letter asserted growth in the community had made it possible for IONE and CDCR to supply all the reclaimed water needed by the Castle Oaks Golf Course. The letter requested ARSA to eliminate all flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM by July 31, 2022. A copy of said letter is attached as Exhibit “B” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
22. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that CDCR constructed, and has been utilizing, a direct connection from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP, bypassing Preston Reservoir.
23. Since construction of a direct delivery system, the MCSP WWTP has been under investigation by the REGIONAL BOARD for problematic waste discharges. The REGIONAL BOARD has found that discharges from the MCSP WWTP are not authorized under WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129. The REGIONAL BOARD also found volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”) and semi-VOCs present in the MCSP WWTP’s effluent and ordered CDCR to submit a Report of Waste Discharge in order for the REGIONAL BOARD to amend existing WDRs or issue new WDRs.
24. Following CDCR’s submission of a Report of Waste Discharge, the REGIONAL BOARD issued a Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program to CDCR on October 21, 2021, imposing additional monitoring and reporting requirements for VOCs. The additional requirements are necessary to determine the effects of MCSP’s discharges on water quality, verify the effectiveness of existing WDRs to comply with applicable water quality objectives, evaluate MCSP’s compliance with the terms and conditions of its WDRs, and determine the need for revised requirements. / / /
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 7 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
25. On the same day, the REGIONAL BOARD also issued a Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program under WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, imposing requirements to monitor and report the COWRP’s influent and effluent for VOCs.
26. Due to IONE’s ongoing failure to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course, namely its failure to obtain the water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law necessary to allow for the provision of adequate reclaimed water to the Castle Oaks Golf Course without use of the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM, any notice issued to date by IONE purporting to terminate its obligation to accept wastewater from ARSA, including its July 19, 2017, letter, is void and of no force and effect.
27. On or about December 3, 2021, ARSA sent separate correspondence to both IONE and CDCR to confirm ARSA’s right to dispose secondarily treated wastewater through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, copies of which are respectively attached as Exhibits “C” and “D” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
28. On or about January 19, 2022, IONE provided a response to ARSA’s December 3, 2021, correspondence, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “E” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. IONE’s January 19, 2022, correspondence reaffirmed its intention to cease services with ARSA as of July 19, 2022, but indicated a willingness to extend the date upon entry into a new agreement with a new fee structure.
29. On or about January 28, 2022, ARSA sent further, separate correspondence to both IONE and CDCR setting forth ARSA’s right to deliver secondary effluent through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and the WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, copies of which are respectively attached as Exhibits “F” and “G” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
30. On or about February 3, 2022, ARSA responded directly to IONE’s January 19, 2022, correspondence, informing IONE that any action taken to prevent, reduce, interrupt, interfere with, or circumvent ARSA from delivering its effluent to IONE would be a breach of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and a violation of the WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, but accepted 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 8 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
IONE’s offer to meet and confer regarding the matter. A copy of ARSA’s February 3, 2022, letter is attached as Exhibit “H” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
31. In or about March 2022, ARSA and IONE began engaging in substantive discussions regarding the outstanding issues concerning ARSA’s discharge of wastewater from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP. In furtherance of these discussions, IONE transmitted correspondence to ARSA outlining several deal points for negotiation of a new agreement on or about July 20, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “I” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. IONE’s July 20, 2022, correspondence stated that negotiation of a new agreement would extend its willingness to accept wastewater under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT until either approval of the new agreement by IONE and ARSA, or February 1, 2024, if no new agreement was reached.
32. On or about July 29, 2022, ARSA provided its response to IONE’s July 20, 2022, correspondence, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “J” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. While ARSA expressed its willingness to attempt to negotiate a new agreement, ARSA advised IONE that ARSA was prepared to seek all available remedies under the law should IONE refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT.
33. On or about August 16, 2022, IONE transmitted its response to ARSA’s July 29, 2002, letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “K” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Among other items, IONE’s August 16, 2022, correspondence repeated its purported right to refuse wastewater from ARSA under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT as of July 31, 2022.
34. On multiple occasions over the past several months, IONE refused to accept wastewater from ARSA, but later accepted a small amount of discharges. Since August 31, 2022, however, IONE has continued to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA.
35. On or about September 8, 2022, ARSA provided timely written notice to IONE that IONE’s refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and stated ARSA’s intention to meet and confer with IONE in an attempt to bring 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 9 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
IONE into compliance with the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. ARSA advised IONE that should IONE continue to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA, ARSA would have no choice but to pursue any and all available remedies under the law against IONE in order to enforce ARSA’s rights under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. A copy of ARSA’s September 8, 2022, letter is attached as Exhibit “L” hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
36. Despite ARSA’s ongoing efforts to resolve the outstanding issues with IONE, IONE continues to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM in accordance with IONE’s obligations under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT.
ARSA is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that CDCR continues to transmit wastewater from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass Preston Reservoir in violation of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, the LEASE, WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129, and WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240.
37. Preston Reservoir is currently near its maximum capacity. The present inability of ARSA to discharge wastewater from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP will result in Preston Reservoir being unable to withstand the higher flows that may occur during the upcoming rainy season, Preston Reservoir overflowing, and/or ARSA having to discharge effluent on other lands in violation of the WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, thus creating significant public health and water quality contamination issues. In light of the quickly approaching rainy season, and given the limitations on how much wastewater can be treated at the COWRP on a daily basis, the need to discharge wastewater from Preston Reservoir is immediate.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief Against IONE and Does 1-10)
38. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
39. IONE breached the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT by failing to perform its obligation to annually accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir, and by accepting wastewater directly from CDCR from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 10 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
40. ARSA performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, except for those covenants and conditions ARSA was prevented or excused from performing.
41. ARSA has no other adequate remedies at law or in equity to seek redress for IONE’s continuing violations of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and therefore seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining IONE from refusing to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir, and restraining IONE from accepting wastewater directly from CDCR and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief Against CDCR and Does 11-20)
42. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
43. CDCR breached the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT by discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
44. CDCR also breached the LEASE by discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
45. ARSA performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and LEASE, except for those covenants and conditions ARSA was prevented or excused from performing.
46. ARSA has no other adequate remedies at law or in equity to seek redress for CDCR’s continuing violations of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and LEASE and therefore seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining CDCR from discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
/ / /
/ / /
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 11 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)
47. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
48. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between ARSA and DEFENDANTS concerning their respective rights and duties. ARSA contends, and ARSA is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS deny, that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, and that CDCR is not permitted to discharge, and IONE is not permitted to accept, wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
49. ARSA desires a judicial determination of the respective rights and duties of ARSA and DEFENDANTS, namely declarations that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, and that CDCR is not permitted to discharge, and IONE is not permitted to accept, wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
50. Such declarations are necessary and appropriate at this time in order that ARSA may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and/or LEASE.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREAS, ARSA demands judgment against DEFENDANTS for the following:
1. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining IONE from refusing to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir;
2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining IONE from accepting wastewater directly from CDCR and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining CDCR from discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
/ / /
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 12 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BEST BEST &
KRIEGER LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
655 WEST BROADWAY, 15TH FLOOR
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101
4. For a judicial determination and declaration that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT;
5. For a judicial determination and declaration that CDCR is not permitted to discharge wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
6. For a judicial determination and declaration that IONE is not permitted to accept wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
7. For attorneys’ fees pursuant to paragraph 18 of the LEASE and costs of suit incurred herein; and
8. For such other and further relief the Court may deem proper.
Dated: September 16, 2022 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By:
SHAWN D. HAGERTY
MATTHEW L. GREEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SANTEE
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
"ServicingAmador City, Martell, & Sutter
Creek"
December 3, 2021
Via Email and Certified Mail
Patrick Covello
Warden
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 4001 Highway 104
P.O. Box 409099
Tone, CA 95640
Re: Lower Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System
Dear Mr. Covello:
This letter addresses the vitally important and ongoing wastewater disposal arrangement among the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA"), the City of lone ("City"), and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") (collectively, "the Parties").
We are writing to confirm ARSA's right to dispose ofsecondarily treated wastewater through the lower Henderson/Preston System. For the reasons explained below, ARSA is legally permitted and will continue discharging secondary effluent to the lower Henderson/Preston System in accordance with its current contractual arrangements with the Parties.
Since 2007, the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System ("2007 Agreement") has governed the Parties' rights and obligations to discharge wastewater through the Henderson/Preston System. As you are aware, the 2007 Agreement provides that ARSA may discharge, and the City must accept, annually up to 650 acre-feet of secondary effluent for disposal. CDCR may, solely through ARSA's existing outfall system and in strict compliance with its existing wastewater permit, discharge up to 350 acre-feet ofsecondary effluent annually, counted against ARSA's disposal right. CDCR's ability to discharge to the City under the 2007 Agreement is therefore derivative of and subordinate to ARSA's disposal right, not independent ofit.
The 2007 Agreement remains in effect until 2037. Although there are limited rights to terminate the 2007 Agreement before 2037, CDCR has not taken the required steps to terminate, and the City oflone has not effectively done so, for the reasons set forth in the attached letter from ARSA to the City, which letter is incorporated herein. Because no Party has effectively taken steps to end the 2007 Agreement early, it remains in effect until 2037, and ARSA is legally permitted and will continue to discharge to the lower Henderson/Preston System. Any actions taken by CDCR to prevent, reduce, interrupt, interfere with, or circumvent ARSA's rights to do so would be inconsistent with CDCR's contractual obligations to ARSA. 18 Main St., Suffer Creek, CA 95685 • Telephone: (209)267-5647 • Fax: (209)267-1655 • TTY: 711 The City of Sutter Creek is an equal opportunity service provider and employer 21 In addition, CDCR leases the Henderson/Preston System to ARSA in accordance with the 2007 Agreement under Ground Lease No. L-2070. The Lease terminates on September 18, 2037, to coincide with the termination date ofthe 2007 Agreement. The Lease acknowledges that CDCR leases to ARSA infrastructure that facilitates an essential utility service, and termination of ARSA's flows to the lower Henderson/Preston System would leave no alternative means for disposal. The Lease expressly recognizes that the Henderson/Preston System is part of a wastewater system, regulated under the California Water Code, and termination ofthe Lease is not practicable nor feasible as it would render an essential utility service inoperable. Any actions taken by CDCR to prevent, reduce, interrupt, interfere with, or circumvent ARSA's rights to discharge to the Henderson/Preston System would be inconsistent with CDCR's contractual obligations to ARSA under the Lease. In the event of any actual or threatened breach ofthe Lease agreement, ARSA may seek equitable injunctive relieffrom a court of competent jurisdiction.
We value our long-term partnership with CDCR and look forward to maintaining it through the life ofthe 2007 Agreement and the Lease. While we are always willing to discuss solutions that are reasonable and fair to all Parties, we feel it important for CDCR to understand that ARSA will continue to discharge secondary effluent to the lower Henderson/Preston System, prior to any discharges from CDCR, in accordance with the contractual arrangements among the Parties and state laws and regulations.
Sincerely,
y Gedney
General Manager
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
cc: ARSA Board
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT F
EXHIBIT G
EXHIBIT H
EXHIBIT I
EXHIBIT J
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
“Servicing Amador City, Martell, & Sutter Creek”
18 Main Street Sutter Creek, CA 95685 TELEPHONE (209) 267-5647 FAX (209) 267-0639 July 29, 2022
Mr. Michael Rock
1 East Main Street
P.O. Box
Ione, CA 95640
SENT VIA EMAIL and CERTIFIED MAIL
Dear Michael:
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (“ARSA”) is in receipt of your July 20, 2022 letter.
As you know, ARSA has repeatedly objected to the City of Ione’s (“City”) attempted 5-year notice (“2017 Notice”) under section 8a of the 2007 Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewaster Disposal System (“2007 Agreement”). As recently as December 3, 2021, ARSA reiterated its position that, in no uncertain terms, City’s supposed termination notice was void and invalid because it did not satisfy the conditions precedent for such a notice. The notice can only be given after the City and CDCR have resolved how to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course. For reasons further explained in that letter, no such resolution was made prior to the Notice.
Let me be clear, ARSA has always been, and continues to remain, even now, willing to embark on negotiating the terms of a potential new agreement consistent with the parties’ existing rights under sections 18 and 20 of the 2007 Agreement. ARSA’s position continues to be that the 2017 Notice is null, void, invalid, and of no legal force and effect and therefore, any purported “suspension” or extension of that illegal notice until Feb. 1, 2024 is also void. ARSA’s desire and willingness to cooperate and explore a new long-term agreement with the City does not, in any way, mean or imply that ARSA accepts and agrees to unilaterally-invoked termination date of February 1, 2024. ARSA continues to reserve all rights with respect to its objections to City’s 2017 Notice and lack of compliance with Section 8a; and furthermore, pursuant to section 21 of the 2007 Agreement, ARSA has made no express, explicit, or waiver of its rights under the existing 2007 Agreement and maintains that any termination notice to date has not complied with Section 8a and that any future notice must comply with Section 8a.
With those points being made, ARSA is, willing to, “immediately embark on negotiating a new agreement” consistent with section 18 and 20 of the existing 2007 Agreement and consistent with our recent discussions over the last four months.
Please be advised that should the City refuse wastewater from ARSA via Preston Reservoir, or otherwise prevents ARSA from conveying flow through the lower system, ARSA is prepared to seek all remedies available to it under law, as provided in Section 14 and 16 of the 2007 Agreement.
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
“Servicing Amador City, Martell, & Sutter Creek”
18 Main Street Sutter Creek, CA 95685 TELEPHONE (209) 267-5647 FAX (209) 267-0639 We trust that we have made our position very clear. ARSA will continue to meet and confer and explore improvements, but maintains its position that 2017 Notice is invalid and void and does not agree to any “suspended” notice until February 1, 2024.
Sincerely,
Amy Gedney
General Manager
Cc: ARSA Board
George Lee
EXHIBIT K
EXHIBIT L
Amador Regionat Soriadon Authority
"Servicing Amador City, Martell, & Sutter Creek"
September 8,2022
Michael Rock
Interim City Manager
City of Ione
1 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 398
Ione, CA 95640
RE: Notice of Breach of Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disoosal System
Dear Michael:
Pursuant to the Agreement to Regulate Use of HendersorVPreston Wastewater Disposal System dated September 18,2007 ("Agreement"), the City of Ione ("City") is obligated annually to accept a specified amount of wastewater from the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA") to the lower HendersorVPreston System until 2037. Although the City may terminate this obligation upon five years' notice, such right is expressly conditioned on the City (and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) having resolved how to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course, which includes, but is not limited to, obtaining any necessary water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law. As detailed in my December 3,2021, coffespondence, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference, due to the City's ongoing failure to provide adequate reclaimed water for the golf course, any notice issued to date purporting to terminate the City's obligation to accept wastewater from ARSA is void and ofno force and effect.
Over the past several months, the City has on more than one occasion refused to accept wastewater from ARSA, but later accepted those discharges. Since August 31,2022, however, the City has refused to accept any wastewater from ARSA. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Agreement, ARSA provides this written notice that the City's refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the Agreement, and ARSA is hereby meeting and conferring with the City in an attempt to bring the City into compliance with the Agreement. If the City continues to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA in accordance with the Agreement, ARSA will have no choice but to pursue any and all available remedies under the law against the City in order to enforce ARSA's rights under the Agreement.
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
l8 Main streer i Sutrer creek, cA 95685 . TELEPHONE (209) 267-5647 . FAX (209) 267-0639 . TTY 711 ATTACHMENT 2
1 2
4 7
10 11
12 13
14 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
SHAWN D. HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435
[email protected]
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 West Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, California 92 I01
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO, Bar No. 272601
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 325-4000
Facsimile: (916) 325-4010
AMADORFiLED
SUPERIOR COURT
SEP 2 9 2022
Attorneys for Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF AMADOR
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY, a California joint powers
agency,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF IONE, a California municipal
corporation; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a California state
agency; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
82456.00002\40712379 1
Case No. 22CV12824
Judge: Hon. J.S. Hermanson
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept.: 1
Complaint Filed: September 20, 2022
- 1 -
igi EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDE fq- 1 6
7 8
10 I1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Plaintiff Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA") applies for a temporary restraining order and for an order requiring Defendant City of lone ("lone") to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending trial in this action, immediately compelling lone and its employees, agents, and persons acting with it or on its behalf, to accept from ARSA 500,000 gallons ofsecondarily treated wastewater per day from Preston Reservoir for 30 days, for a total of 15 million gallons ofsecondarily treated wastewater over the 30-day period.
This application is made pursuant to the provisions ofCode of Civil Procedure section 527 on the grounds that there is a strong likelihood ARSA will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and that the interim harm that ARSA is likely to sustain if an injunction is denied outweighs the harm lone is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. Specifically, this application is made on the grounds that ARSA operates a wastewater delivery and disposal system that transports secondarily treated wastewater from the City of Sutter Creek's treatment plant to Preston Reservoir for discharge to lone for tertiary treatment at its Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant: that ARSA's Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System with lone obligates lone to accept 650 acre feet of secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir annually, namely up to 95 acre feet of wastewater per month from April through September and up to 10 acre feet of wastewater per month from October through March; that lone is refusing to accept any discharges from Preston Reservoir; and that lone's immediate acceptance of at least 500,000 gallons per day for the next 30 days is imperative in order to prevent Preston Reservoir from spilling over during the upcoming rainy season in the event of a 100-year storm, and avoid the public health and water quality contamination crises that would ensue from the surrounding areas (including residential properties) being flooded with wastewater containing harmful pathogens (protozoa, bacteria, and viruses), inorganic compounds, and parasites.
This application is based upon the Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order, and the Declarations of Amy Gedney, Gary Ghio, Steven Corey Stone, Donald Brown, and Matthew Green.
Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (a), the California Secretary of State's most recent edition of the California Roster identifies David Prentice of 82456.00002\40712379.1 - 2 -
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
BEST &KRIEGER LLP
DIEO.). C.U.IFoR SAN
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 77
23 74
25 26
27 28
PrenticelLong, PC as the City Attorney for lone. According to the State Bar ofCalifornia's website, his contact information is 114 W. Shaw Avenue, Suite 102, Fresno, California 93704, [email protected], (559) 500-1600. In the event of the California Roster is no longer accurate, Michael Rock is the Interim City Manager of lone, and his contact information is P.O.
Box 398, 1 East Main Street, lone, California 95640, mrock ione-ca.com, (209) 274-2412, ext. 116. Pursuant to the California Rules of Court, rule 3.1202, subdivision (b), there have been no previous applications for simi lar rclieL
Dated: September 28, 2022
82456.00002\40712379.1
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By:
- 3 -
SHAWN D. HAGERTY
MATTHEW L. GREEN
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
Matthew L Green, SBN 227904; Frank A. Splendorio, SBN 272601 Best Best & Krieger LLP 655 W. Broadway, 15th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101 TELEPHONE (619) 525-1370
FAX NO. (Optional):
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
AMADOR SUPERIOR COURT
500 ARGONAUT LANE
JACKSON, CA 95642
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: CITY OF IONE, et al.
OTHER:
FOR COURT USE ONLY
FILED
AMADOR SUPERIOR COURT
SEP29 2022
CLERK OF THE SleRIOR COURT
BY 3(11-0/)
IS1 DECLARATION RE: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS
ORDER SHORTENING TIME
CASE NUMBER:
22-CV-12824
I, Matthew L. Green , do declare:
1. That I am EI Counsel for El Plaintiff/Petitioner 3 Defendant/Respondent in the within action.
2. 1have given notice of the present application for an ex parte order and/or order shortening time to: [E] Counsel for E Plaintiff/Petitioner Ej Defendant/Respondent in the following manner:
a. El By telephone call: at 3:18 p. .m., on September 28 , 2022.
The person to whom I spoke was Margaret E. Long, City Attorney for Defendant City of lone The message left was:
Ms. Long called me after receiving notice of the ex parte application via electronic mail to discuss the application and the relief sought by Plaintitff Amador Regional Sanitation Authority. b. D By letter: D mailed 3 personally delivered at .m., on , 20
3. I received the following response to said notice:
Ms. Long indicated the City of lone would appear at the ex parte hearing to oppose the application.
4. I did not give notice of the present application for the following reason(s) indicated:
a. 13 Notice of this ex parte application would frustrate the purpose of the orders sought herein. b. E The applicant would suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the adverse party could be heard in opposition.
Optional use
New 4/05/2017 Pagel of 2
www.amadorcourt.org
C1V-135
DECLARATION RE: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS AND/OR ORDERS SHORTENING TIME American LegaINct, Inc.
uww Forrn,WreFlow com
c. LI No significant direct burden or inconvenience to the adverse party will be likely to result from the order sought herein.
d. I=1 Prior attempts to give notice have failed and would probably be futile or unduly burdensome.
NOTE: CALIFORNIA RULE OF COURT 3.1200-3.1207 GOVERNS NOTICE REQUIREMENT I Declare under Penalty of Perjury under the Laws of the State of California That the Foregoing Is True and Correct.
Place: San Diego, CA
Matthew L. Green
Date: September 29 , 2022
(Type or Print Name) (Signature of Party or Party's Attorney)
ORDER SHORTENING TIME
Time for: El service is shortened. Service shall be on / or before El hearing is shortened. Hearing is set
Date: , 20
(Date)
, 20
, 20
(Date)
(Judge/Commisioner of tile Superior Court)
Optional use
New 4/05/2017 Page 2 of 2
www.amadorcourt.org
CIV-135
DECLARATION RE: NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDERS AND/OR ORDERS SHORTENING TIME American LegaINet, Inc.
Yzwav Form.sWnrkFlow mm
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
23 24
25 26
27 28
SHAWN D. HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435
[email protected]
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 West Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO, Bar No. 272601
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 325-4000
Facsimile: (916) 325-4010
AMADOR FILED
SUPERIOR COURT
SEP 2 9 2022
LEAK er
Attorneys for Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF AMADOR
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY, a California joint powers
agency,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF IONE, a California municipal
corporation; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a California state
agency; and DOES I through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 22CV12824
Judge: Hon. J.S. Hermanson
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Complaint Filed:
October 3, 2022
8:30 a.m.
1 September 20, 2022
82456.00002\40713343.1 - 1 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO tteic
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiff Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA") respectfully submits the following memorandum in support of its ex parte application for an order to show cause and temporary restraining order ("TRO") against Defendant City of lone ("lone").
I.
INTRODUCTION
ARSA comes before the Court ex parte in order to prevent the public health and water quality contamination crises that will ensue in the event Preston Reservoir spills over and exposes the surrounding areas, including residential properties, to wastewater containing harmful pathogens (protozoa, bacteria, and viruses), inorganic compounds, and parasites. lone is contractually required to accept 650 acre feet of wastewater from Preston Reservoir annually at its Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant ("Castle Oaks WRP") for tertiary treatment for irrigation use at the Castle Oaks GolfCourse ("GolfCourse"). Under its contract with ARSA, lone is specifically required to accept 505 acre feet of wastewater by the end of September in each calendar year. In 2022, however, lone has accepted a mere 28.7 acre feet of wastewater from Preston Reservoir to date.
As the irrigation season is nearing its end, and the rainy season is quickly approaching (a La Nina season no less), it is imperative that wastewater be discharged from Preston Reservoir immediately. Given the water treated at the Castle Oaks WRP is only provided to the Golf Course for irrigation, lone's ability to discharge the water from the Preston Reservoir will become very limited once the rainy season commences. It is therefore crucial that ARSA be permitted to resume discharging wastewater from Preston Reservoir before the rainy season begins and lone has nowhere to send the water. Otherwise, in the event of a 100-year storm during the upcoming rainy season, which ARSA is required to account for, Preston Reservoir is projected to reach its permitted level by early March 2023, and spill over by April 2023. In order to avoid this untenable situation, and the public health and water quality contamination crises that will follow, it is urgent that lone immediately begin accepting at least 500,000 gallons ofwastewater from Preston Reservoir per day for at least the next 30 days.
"Acre feet" is a term commonly used in water supply planning to describe water volume.
An acre foot is approximately 325,851 gallons, which is enough water to cover an acre of land roughly 1-foot deep.
82456.00002140713343.1 - 2 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
BACKGROUND FACTS
A. THE HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM
ARSA is a joint powers agency formed by the Cities of Amador City and Sutter Creek and the County of Amador to provide wastewater conveyance and disposal services in those areas. (Ohio Decl., ¶ 2; Gedney Dec1.1 2; Stone Decl., If 2.) Wastewater from those areas is treated at the Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Sutter Creek WTP") and then conveyed through a series of pipelines and reservoirs, and ultimately to Preston Reservoir, through what is known as the "Henderson/Preston System." (Ohio Decl., If 3; Gedney Decl., ¶ 3; Stone Decl., If 3.) ARSA discharges the wastewater from Preston Reservoir to lone for tertiary treatment at its Castle Oaks WRP, which is then used for irrigation at the Golf Course. (Ohio Decl., If 3; Gedney Decl.. II 3:
Stone Decl., If 3.)
B. IONE'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO ACCEPT WASTEWATER
FROM THE HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM
The rights and obligations regarding wastewater discharges from Preston Reservoir are set forth in a 2007 contract between ARSA and lone, as well as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), identified as the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System ("Wastewater Agreement"). (Ohio Decl., ¶ 6, Ex.
B to Ex. A [Wastewater Agreement]; Gedney Decl.. If 4.) Under the Wastewater Agreement, lone is obligated to accept 650 acre feet (or 211,803,427 gallons) of wastewater from Preston Reservoir annually. (Wastewater Agreement, In 1, 2.) The Wastewater Agreement specifically requires lone to accept up to 95 acre feet (or 30,955,886 gallons) of wastewater per month from April through September and up to 10 acre feet (or 3,258,514 gallons) of wastewater per month from October through March. (Wastewater Agreement, Elf 5.a.) By the end of September in each calendar year, lone is therefore obligated to accept 505 acre feet (or 164.554,755 gallons) of wastewater from Preston Reservoir.
82456.00002\40713343.1 - 3 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO
BEST &KRIEGER LLP
1 7
8 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 I8
19 20
21 22
23 24
76 27
28 C. THE REGIONAL BOARD'S REGULATION OF THE
HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM
The parties' wastewater discharges are regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Regional Board"). The Regional Board's Water Reclamation Requirements ("WRRs-) Order No. 93-240 regulates the Castle Oaks WRP and flows thereto from the Henderson/Preston System. (Ghio Decl., 118, Ex. B.) WRRs Order No. 93-240 only permits wastewater treatment and reuse based on the flows to Preston Reservoir through the llenderson/Preston System. (Ghio Decl., if 8, Ex. B.) WRRs Order No. 93-240 also names only ARSA, lone, and Portlock International, Ltd. (the Golf Course) as the dischargers. (Ghio Decl., 8, Ex. B.) tone has received no other water quality permits or permit modifications from the Regional Board that allow lone to provide reclaimed water to the GolfCourse in any manner other than through the Henderson/Preston System from Preston Reservoir. (Ghio Decl., 8, Ex. B.) D. IONE'S CONTINUING REFUSAL TO ACCEPT WASTEWATER FROM
THE HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM
Since March 2022, lone has only intermittently accepted wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir and has refused to accept the contractual amounts it is required to accept under the Wastewater Agreement. (Gedney Decl., VII 6-13.) On August 31, 2022, lone entirely ceased accepting any wastewater from Preston Reservoir. (Gedney Decl., If 11.) ARSA accordingly provided lone written notice on September 8, 2022, that its refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach ofthe Wastewater Agreement. (Gedney Decl., If 11, Ex. A.) Although lone ignored ARSA's default notice, lone began accepting limited amounts of wastewater from Preston Reservoir on September 19, 2022. (Gedney Decl., if 12.) lone, however, again ceased accepting wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir on September 21, 2022.2 (Gedney Decl., If 12.)
On September 23, 2022, ARSA sent another letter imploring lone to accept wastewater from Preston Reservoir before the irrigation season ends in order to reduce the risk of Preston Given lone was served with the summons and complaint in this matter on September 21, 2022, its latest failure to accept wastewater from Preston Reservoir was an apparent act of spite. (See Gedney Decl., If 12.) 82456.00002\40713343.1 - 4 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 6 7
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
72 23
24 75
26 27
28 Reservoir spilling over during the upcoming rainy season. (Gedney Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. B.) Given the grave consequences that would ensue in the event Preston Reservoir spills over, ARSA warned lone that the failure to accept wastewater would leave ARSA no choice but to seek relief from this Court. (Gedney Decl., Ex. B.) Unfortunately, lone ignored ARSA's plea, forcing ARSA to appear ex parte to request a TRO. (Gedney Decl., If 13.)
LEGAL STANDARD
In determining whether to issue a temporary restraining order, courts consider two factors:
"( 1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial[,] and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to sustain if the injunction were denied as compared to the harm the defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction were issued." (Smith v. Advenus; Health System/West (2010) 182 Cal.App4th 729, 749.) While weighing these factors lies within the broad discretion ofthe court, it is an abuse ofdiscretion to deny a preliminary injunction where the denial would result in great harm to the plaintiff, and the defendant would suffer little harm if it were granted. (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Ca1.3d 199, 205.) Additionally, where a plaintiff makes a strong showing on one of the factors, less of a showing is necessary on the other factor. (Butt v. State ofCal. (1992) 4 Ca1.4th 668, 678; King v. Meese (1987) 43 Ca1.3d 1217, 1227- 1228.) Regarding the likelihood ofsuccess on the merits prong, the plaintiff need only demonstrate -sonic possibility'. that it will ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim. (Jamison v. Dept. of Transp. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 362.)
1V.
ARGUMENT
A. ARSA IS LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AT TRIAL
ARSA's complaint seeks injunctive relief arising from lone's breach of the Wastewater Agreement. as well as declaratory relief regarding ARSA's and lone's respective rights and 82456.00002\40713343.1 - 5 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 1 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 23
14 16
27 28
obligations thereunder.3 (Gedney Decl., Ex. D [Compl.], in 39-41, 47-50.) "[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence ofthe contract, (2) plaintiffs performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff." (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal .4th 811, 821.) Regarding a cause of action for declaratory relief on a contract, the two essential elements are (1) a legally binding contract that is a proper subject for declaratory relief; and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the contacting parties' rights and obligations. (Wilson & Wilson v.
City Council ofRedwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1582.) ARSA is likely to prevail on both causes of action against lone.
ARSA's first cause of action alleges "[lone] breached the [Wastewater Agreement] by failing to perform its obligation to annually accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir[.]" (Compl., 1139.) As noted above, the Wastewater Agreement requires lone to accept 650 acre feet of wastewater from Preston Reservoir, and specifically a total of 505 acre feet through September of each calendar year. (Wastewater Agreement, Ili 1, 2, 5.a.) In 2022, however, lone has accepted only 28.7 acre feet of wastewater from Preston Reservoir, a shortfall of more than 476 acre feet to date. (Stone Dee!., If 5.)
In addition to the existence of a contract, i.e., the Wastewater Agreement, ARSA's second cause of action avers there is an actual controversy as to whether "[lone] is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the [Wastewater Agreement][.]" (Compl., 1148.) The evidence presented to the Court clearly establishes an actual controversy regarding ARSA's right to discharge, and Ione's obligation to accept, wastewater from Preston Reservoir. ARSA has accordingly demonstrated more than "some possibility" that it will ultimately prevail on the merits of its claims against lone. (Jamison, supra, 4 Cal.App.5th at p. 362.)
/ /
/
3 ARSA's complaint also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against CDCR, but those claims are not at issue in this ex parte application.
82456.00002\40713343.1 - 6 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. THE BALANCING OF HARDSHIPS TIPS SHARPLY IN ARSA'S FAVOR The interim harm that ARSA would be likely to sustain if an injunction is denied far outweighs any alleged harm that lone would be likely to suffer if an injunction is issued. Regarding the former, in the event of a 100-year storm during the upcoming rainy season, which ARSA is required to account for to ensure sufficient capacity in the Henderson/Preston System, Preston Reservoir will reach its permitted capacity in early March 2023, and will spill over in April 2023. (Ohio Decl.. ¶ 11.) If Preston Reservoir spills over, the wastewater will flood a nearby Cal Fire Academy property and then run through a nearby creek, Mule Creek, and into the residential subdivision surrounding the Golf Course. (Ghio Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. C.) The flooding and discharge of disinfected secondary effluent into Mule Creek and onto residential property poses significant public health and water quality contamination issues, as disinfected secondary effluent contains harmful pathogens (protozoa, bacteria, and viruses), inorganic compounds, and parasites. (Ghio Decl., ¶ 10.)
The only purported harm to lone resulting from the discharge of wastewater from Preston Reservoir is that the water is allegedly high in hydrogen sulfide, which could cause odor issues at the Castle Oaks WRP and the Golf Course, and that the water purportedly has high turbidity (i.e., cloudiness), which may cause treatment difficulties. On September 9, 2022, however, the Regional Board issued correspondence to ARSA, lone, and the Golf Course addressing the balancing of harms. (Ghio Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. D.) The Regional Board's September 9, 2022, letter confirmed that "the capacity issues at Preston [Reservoir] are presenting an even greater risk to water quality and public health than potential nuisance concerns related to the treatment of wastewater from Preston [Reservoir] at lone's [Castle Oaks WRI31.” (Ghio Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. D.) ARSA's engineer has opined that lone's acceptance of at least 500,000 gallons (or 0.15 acre feet) of wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir for at least the next 30 days should be sufficient to avoid Preston Reservoir spilling over before the end of the upcoming rainy season. (Ghio Decl., ¶ 12.) It is therefore imperative that lone be ordered to immediately begin accepting at least 500,000 gallons of wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir for a period of at least 30 days. (Ghio Decl., II 12.)
82456.00002\40713343.1 - 7 -
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 3 4
6 7
8 9
10 I 1
12 13
14 IS
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 C. ARSA IS NOT REQUIRED TO POST SECURITY FOR A TRO TO ISSUE Code of Civil Procedure section 995.220 provides in relevant part:
[I]f a statute provides for a bond in an action or proceeding, including but not limited to a bond for issuance of a restraining order or injunction, ... the following public entities ... are not required to give the bond and shall have the same rights, remedies, and benefits as ifthe bond were given: ... (b) A county, city, or district, or public authority, public agency, or other political subdivision in the state ....
Code of Civil Procedure section 995.220 therefore exempts ARSA from posting security in order for a restraining order to issue.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court should issue a TRO and an order requiring lone to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue pending trial in this action, immediately compelling lone to accept from ARSA 500,000 gallons of secondarily treated wastewater per day from Preston Reservoir for 30 days, for a total of 15 million gallons of secondarily treated wastewater over the 30-day period.
Dated: September 28, 2022
82456.00002\40713343.1
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
By:
- 8 -
SHAWN D. HAGERTY
MATTHEW L. GREEN
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR OSC AND TRO 6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 77
28 SHAWN D. HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435
[email protected]
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 West Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO, Bar No. 272601
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 325-4000
Facsimile: (916) 325-4010
AMADOR
FLED
SUPERIOR COURT
SEP 2 9 2022
CLERK
By
Attorneys for Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF AMADOR
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY, a California joint powers
agency,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF IONE, a California municipal
corporation; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a California state -
agency; and DOES 1through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 22CV12824
Judge: Hon. J.S. Herrnanson
DECLARATION OF AMY GEDNEY IN
SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Complaint Filed:
October 3, 2022
8:30 a.m.
1 September 20, 2022
82456.00002140728177.1 - 1 -
DECLARATION OF AMY GEDNEY
\LIFO
4 7
8 9
IO
Il
l2
I3
I4
I5
I6
i 7
X
i9
20 2 I
23 24
25 26
27 28
l, Amy Gedney. declare as follows:
l . I have personal knowledge of the following facts. and if called to testify. I would and could testify competently thereto.
2. Since .lune 2017, I have been the General IVIanager of the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA"), a joint powers agency responsible for providing wastewater conveyance and d isposal services to the Cities of Amador City and Sutter Creek and the County of Amador.
3. Wastewater from the City of Sutter Creek, Amador City, and the Marte!l community is treated by the Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Pla.nt ("Sutter Creek WTP"), which is owned and operated by the City of Sutter Creek. Disinfected secondary effluent from the Sutter Creek WTP is conveyed through a series of pipelines and reservoirs. known as the "Henderson/Preston System," and ultitnately to Preston Reservoir for discharge to the City of lone ("Ione") for tertiary treatment at its Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Mant ("Caste Oaks WRP") for irrigation USe at the Castle Oaks Golf Course ("Gold Course").
4. ARSA operates the Henderson/Preston System pursuant to a ground lease with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the owner of the System, and the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System dated September l8, 2007 ("Wastewater Agreement"). The Wastewater Agreement obligates lone to accept 650 acre feet (or 211,803,427 gallons) of secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir annually, specifically up to 95 acre feet (or 30.955,886 gallons) of wastewater per month from April through September and up to 10 acre feet (or 3,258,514 gallons) of wastewater per month from October throuL,,h March.
5 In March 2022, I began discussions with Ione's Interim City Manager, Michael Rock, and the Golf Course Manager, George Lee, regarding how water discharges from Preston Reservoir would proceed for the year and the need to negotiate a new agreement. During those discussions, 1assured Ione and the Golf Course t.hat ARSA would have water available for tise at the gol f course.
/ / I
82456.00002140728 I 77.1 - 2 -
DECIARATION OF AMY GEDNEY
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 23
24 26
27 28
6. Beginning in March 2022. lone also refused to accept wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir on multiple occasions. While lone later accepted wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir. lone refused to accept the full amount of wastewater that ARSA sought to discharge to the Caste Oaks W RP for tertiary treatment.
7. lone claimed that the water from Preston Reservoir smelled. ARSA accordingly worked with its engineer to add a solvent that would eliminate the odor. The pipe that takes water out of Preston Reservoir is located at the bottom of the Reservoir, where sediment that causes the odor is located. Once enough water is pulled from Preston Reservoir. however, the odor disappears.
8. In May 2022. ARSA requested that lone receive discharges from Preston Reservoir again. lone, however, claimed that that the water smelled and refused to take the full amount. While ARSA devised a new setup to treat the water in Preston Reservoir, lone refused to let the water run long enough to allow the new setup to work properly, lone gave no notice and stopped the discharge again.
9. In June 2022, as the days became hotter, lone asked for water from ARSA from Preston Reservoir. ARSA accordingly expedited payment for a new chemical in order to eliminate any odors from the water. After delivering five acre feet (or 1,629.255 gallons) of water, lone again shut off the water. In the previous year, ARSA discharged 20 acre feet (or 6,517,020 gallons) to lone in April. and lone made no complaints about the smell after 10 acre feet (or 3,258,510 gallons) was delivered.
10. On multiple occasions from March through August 2022, I requested that lone receive water from ARSA so that Preston Reservoir is emptied before the end of the irrigation season, and the beginning the rainy season, in order to ensure that Preston Reservoir does not spill over during the coming rainy season.
1I. On August 31, 2022, lone refused to accept any wastewater from ARSA. On September 8, 2022, on behalf of ARSA. I accordingly provided written notice to Michael Rock, lone's Interim City Manager, that lone's refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the Wastewater Agreement. A true and correct copy of my September 8. 2022, letter to Mr. Rock is attached as Exhibit "A" hereto.
8 2 156.00002\40 72 8177 1 - 3 -
DECLARATION OF AMY GEDNEY
1 4
5 6
Q
9 10
l l
2 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
23 24
25 26
27 28
12. After ignoring my September 8, 2022, correspondence, Jone again began acccpting wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir on September I9, 2022, but only accepted 400,000 gallons (or 1.22 acre feet) on that day, which was reduced to only 200,000 gallons (or 0.61 acre feet) on September 20, 2022 due to purported water quality issues concerning the wastewater. lone once again ceased accepting wastewater .from ARSA from Prestml Reservoir on September 21, 2022, the same day Ione was served with the summons and complaint in this lawsuit.
13. On September 23, 2022, I selit another letter to Mr. Rock imploring Ione to cease refusing to accept wastewater from ARSA from Prestoli Reservoir before the irrigation season ends in order to reduce the risk of Prestoli Reservoir spilling over during the upcoming, rainy season. A true and correct copy of m y September 23, 2022, correspondence is attached as Exhibit "13" hereto.
Ione ignored my letter and continues to refuse to accept any wastewater from ARSA from Preston Reservoir.
14. A true and correct Copy of ARSA's Complaint for Injunctive and Deelaratory Relief is attached as L'xhibit "C- hereto. True and correct copies of communications between ARSA and Ione are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits C. E, G through L. declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the tbregoing true and correct.
Executed this 28th day of September 2022, at Sutter Crk. California. 82456.00002\40728 I77.1 - 4 -
AMY GEDNEY
DECLARATION OF AMY GEDNEY
EXHIBIT A
AmadorRegional Sanitation Authority
"Servicing Aniador City, Martell, & Sutter Creek"
September 8, 2022
Michael Rock
Interim City Manager
City of lone
1 E. Main Street
P.O. Box 398
lone, CA 95640
RE: Notice ofBreach of Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System
Dear Michael:
Pursuant to the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System dated September 18, 2007 ("Agreement"), the City of lone ("City") is obligated annually to accept a specified amount of wastewater from the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority ("ARSA") to the lower Henderson/Preston System until 2037. Although the City may terminate this obligation upon five years' notice, such right is expressly conditioned on the City (and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) having resolved how to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course, which includes, but is not limited to, obtaining any necessary water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law. As detailed in my December 3, 2021, correspondence, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference, due to the City's ongoing failure to provide adequate reclaimed water for the golf course, any notice issued to date purporting to terminate the City's obligation to accept wastewater from ARSA is void and of no force and effect.
Over the past several months, the City has on more than one occasion refused to accept wastewater from ARSA, but later accepted those discharges. Since August 31, 2022, however, the City has refused to accept any wastewater from ARSA. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Agreement, ARSA provides this written notice that the City's refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the Agreement, and ARSA is hereby meeting and conferring with the City in an attempt to bring the City into compliance with the Agreement. If the City continues to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA in accordance with the Agreement, ARSA will have no choice but to pursue any and all available remedies under the law against the City in order to enforce ARSA's rights under the Agreement.
Si erely
Gedney
neral Manag
Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
18 Main Street • Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • TELEPHONE (209) 267-5647 • FAX (209) 267-0639 • 1-1'Y 711
EXHIBIT B
AmadorReg SanitationAuthon"
•
711%%%
"Servicing Amador City, Marte
September 23, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Michael,
1, & Sutter Creek"
We have received your co sultant's letter regarding the treatability of ARSA's secondary effluent.
We are preparing a respon e that will show ARSA's effluent is treatable and within the limits of secondarily-treated effluen standards.
In the meantime, I am writ ng to you now to implore and appeal to you to request that you no longer refuse ARSA's water during this very critical time (before the irrigation period limits Ione's ability to do so.
Even if you take 500,000 allons per day between October 3rd and October 31', for example, ifthere is a 100-year storm event gain like we had in 2016/2017, we can avoid overflowing Preston Reservoir with secondary dffluent in April, and hopefully make it through the rainy season altogether well into late spring/early ummer. Ifyou continue to refuse to accept ARSA's effluent, I fear a grave and irreparable over ow will occur in the MarchJApril timeframe.
For the betterment ofthe rcgion, I ask you to take this water immediately or we will be forced to seek further emergency relief fr,m the Court. Please let me know by close of business on Tuesday, 9/27/22 ifyou can agree to taking 500,000 gallons/day starting immediately, through October 31, 2022.
ank you
y e ney
neral Manager
18 Main Street • Sutter Creek, CA 95685 • TELEPHONE (209) 267-5647 6 FAX (209) 267-0639
EXHIBIT C
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
II
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 SHAWN D. HAGERTY, Bar No. 182435
shawn.hagerty®bbklaw.com
MATTHEW L. GREEN, Bar No. 227904
[email protected]
BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
655 West Broadway, 15th Floor
San Diego, California 92101
Telephone: (619) 525-1300
Facsimile: (619) 233-6118
FRANK A. SPLENDORIO, Bar No. 272601
[email protected]
BEST BEST 8t KRIEGER LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, California 95814
Telephone: (916) 325-4000
Facsimile: (916) 325-4010
AMADORFILED
SUPERIOR COURT
SEP 2 0 2022
01,EF114 Pr THE SHPERIOR COURT ay R- NPR tS
Attorneys for Plaintiff EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES PURSUANT AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY TO GOVERNMENT CODE SEcrioN 6103
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF AMADOR
AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION
AUTHORITY, a California joint powers
agency,
Plaintiff,
V.
CITY OF IONE, a California municipal
corporation; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, a California state
agency; and DOES 1through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.
82456.00002\40680950. I
22 -CV- 12324
Case No.
Judge:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
- 1-
CASE ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
HON. U HERMANSON Cu 170.6
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
&KRIEGER LLP BEST
1 4
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 Plaintiff AMADOR REGIONAL SANITATION AUTHORITY ("ARSA") alleges as follows:
PARTIES
. ARSA is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a California joint powers agency established pursuant to the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Government Code sections 6500, et seq., responsible for providing wastewater conveyance and disposal services to its member agencies: the County of Amador and the Cities of Amador City and Sutter Creek, and located in the County of Amador. California.
2. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CITY OF IONE ("ION IT) is now, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and located in the County of Amador. California.
3. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ("CDCR1 is now. and at all times mentioned in this Complaint was, a state agency organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and the owner of a series pipelines and reservoirs located in the County of Amador, Cal itorn ia.
4. ARSA is unaware of the true names and capacities ofthose defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 20. ARSA is informed and believes and on such basis alleges that these Fictitiously named defendants are in some way responsible for the harm sustained by ARSA as alleged in the Complaint. ARSA will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named defendants when ascertained.
5. Defendants IONE, CDCR, and Does 1through 20 (collectively, "DEFENDANTS"), and each ofthem, are and were at all times mentioned herein agents, employees, or partners of each other, and, in doing the acts alleged herein, each defendant was acting within the scope of his. her, or its authority as such agent, employee, or partner. with the information and consent of each defendant, and each ratified or approved the conduct of the defendants alleged herein. 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 2 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 3
4 5
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 23
24 25
26 27
28 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
6. Wastewater from the City of Sutter Creek, Amador City, and the Martell community is treated by the Sutter Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant ("SUTTER CREEK WWTP"), which is owned and operated by the City of Sutter Creek. Secondary effluent from the SUTTER CREEK WWTP is conveyed through a series of pipelines and reservoirs, which make up a wastewater delivery and disposal system known as the "HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM."
7. The HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM is comprised of an upper element and a lower element. The upper HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM generally consists of the area from the outfall of the SUTTER CREEK WWTP to the Preston Youth Correctional Facility. The lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM generally includes the components that lie below Preston Forebay to the outfall of the pipeline that conveys the secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir to IONE. IONE receives wastewater from the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM for tertiary treatment at its Castle Oaks Water Reclamation Plant ("COWRP") for irrigation use at the Castle Oaks Golf Course.
8. The HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM is owned by CDCR. Since in or about 1977, CDCR has leased the pipelines and reservoirs that make up the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM to ARSA. A copy of the current lease between ARSA and CDCR, Ground lease No. T2070 ("LEASE"), executed on February 23, 2009, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
9. Under the LEASE, which does not expire until September 18, 2037, ARSA uses the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM (referred to in the LEASE as the "Premises") to transport water and wastewater pursuant to a separate agreement between ARSA. CDCR. and IONE, the Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System dated September 18, 2007 ("WASTEWATER AGREEMENT"), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to the LEASE.
10. The LEASE provides in relevant part the following regarding termination and injunctive relief: "The parties to this Lease hereto recognize that the Premises leased hereunder is part of a wastewater system, regulated under the California Water Code, and that termination of 52456.00002\40680950 1 - 3 -
COMPLAINTFOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
&KFUEGER LLP BEST
C,;4)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 23
24 25
26 27
28 this Lease is not practicable nor feasible as it would render an essential utility service inoperable, with no alternate means readily available to [CDCR] and [ARSA] to dispose of their effluent that is not in violation oftheir other permit obligations. Therefore. the parties to this Lease have deleted any reference herein to termination of this Lease for breach, and instead expressly agree that injunctive relief to cure any actual or threatened breach is appropriate, and agree that either party shall be entitled to seek equitable injunctive relief from a court of competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the obligations hereunder. Neither party shall be entitled to defend such action on the basis that injunctive relief is improper, or that monetary damages are adequate."
11. The LEASE further provides that time is of the essence for each and all of' the provisions, covenants, and conditions therein, and that the LEASE may not be modified except by a written instrument duly executed by the parties thereto.
12. Under its express terms, the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT governs the wastewater rights and obligations among ARSA, CDCR. and IONE, as well as the relationship and respective rights between ARSA, CDCR. and IONE with regard to the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
13. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT allows ARSA to annually discharge 650 acre feet of treated wastewater to Preston Reservoir for disposal. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, however, provides that CDCR may annually discharge up to 350 acre feet oftreated wastewater to Preston Reservoir, which amount is counted against ARSA's 650 acre-foot disposal right. CDCR operates the Mule Creek State Prison ("MCSP1, wastewater from which is treated by CDCR at its MCSP Wastewater Treatment Plant ("MCSP WWTP").
14. Pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, IONE is obligated annually to accept from ARSA/CDCR a combined total of 650 acre feet ofsecondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir. Specifically, IONE must accept up to 95 acre feet of wastewater per month from April through September, and up to 10 acre of wastewater per month from October through March, but such limits may be waived by agreement of the parties in the event of an emergency and where necessary for the prevention of environmental damage or civil liabilities attendant to wastewater violations. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT further provides that ARSA and 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 4 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
7-;
24 25
26 27
28 CDCR will continue to provide effluent from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP for use on the Castle Oaks Golf Course, ifsuch effluent is available.
15. The term of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT is 30 years and will not expire until September 18, 2037, the same date that the LEASE ends. While the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT allows IONE to terminate flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM upon five-years' written notice, such right cannot be exercised unless IONE and CDCR have resolved how to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks GolfCourse, which includes, but is not limited to, obtaining any necessary water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law.
16. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT also provides that it may be amended only by written instrument signed by all the parties thereto.
17. The WASTEWATER AGREEMENT further requires CDCR. IONE, and ARSA to work to obtain all necessary permits, approvals, and authorizations to carry out the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT in compliance with all pertinent Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
18. The parties' wastewater discharges are regulated by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board ("REGIONAL BOARD"). The REGIONAL f3OARD's Water Reclamation Requirements ("WRRs") Order No. 93-240 ("WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240") regulates the COWRP and flows thereto from the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM, while the REGIONAL BOARD's Waste Discharge Requirements ("WDRs") Order No. R5-2015-0129 ("WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129") regulates the MCSP WWTP.
19. WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 only permits wastewater treatment and reuse based on the flows to Preston Reservoir through the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM; it does not permit an alternative direct connection from CDCR to the COWRP. WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 also does not recognize CDCR as a named discharger to the COWRP; WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240 names only ARSA. IONE, and Portlock International, Ltd. (Castle Oaks Golf Course) as the dischargers.
20. Aside from spray irrigation on land application areas, WDRs ORDER NO. RS - 2015 -0129 only permits disposal of wastewater to Preston Reservoir up to the maximum 350 acrefeet allowed under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129 82456.00002\40680950. I - 5 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
DIEO, CALIFOR
1 4
7 9
1 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
?3
24 25
26 27
28 recognizes that "Preston Reservoir serves as a means of conveyance of effluent flows from the [ARSA1 system and the [MCSP1 WWTP to the City of lone wastewater disposal system or to the ICOWRPI for further treatment and reuse at the Castle Oaks Golf Course (under [WRRs ORDER NO. 93-2401)."
21. On or about July 19, 2017. IONE issued a letter purporting to provide five years" notice to ARSA to eliminate all flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. Said letter asserted growth in the community had made it possible for IONF, and CDCR to supply all the reclaimed water needed by the Castle Oaks Golf Course. The letter requested ARSA to eliminate all flows to the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM by July 31, 2022. A copy ofsaid letter is attached as Exhibit "Ir hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
22. ARSA is informed and believes and thereon alleges that CDCR constructed, and has been utilizing, a direct connection from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP, bypassing Preston Reservoir.
23. Since construction of a direct delivery system, the MCSP WWTP has been under investigation by the REGIONAL BOARD for problematic waste discharges. The REGIONAL BOARD has found that discharges from the MCSP WWTP arc not authorized under WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129. The REGIONAL BOARD also found volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and semi-VOCs present in the MCSP WWTP's effluent and ordered CDCR to submit a Report of Waste Discharge in order for the REGIONAL BOARD to amend existing WDRs or issue new WDRs.
24. Following CDCR's submission of a Report of Waste Discharge, the REGIONAL BOARD issued a Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program to CDCR on October 21, 2021, imposing additional monitoring and reporting requirements tbr VOCs. The additional requirements are necessary to determine the effects of MCSP's discharges on water quality, verify the effectiveness of existing WDRs to comply with applicable water quality objectives, evaluate MCSP's compliance with the terms and conditions of its WDRs, and determine the need for revised requirements. 82456.00002\40680950.1 - 6 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
16 17
18 9
77 `)3
24 25
26 28
25. On the same day, the REGIONAL BOARD also issued a Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program under WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, imposing requirements to monitor and report the COWRP's influent and effluent for VOCs.
26. Due to IONE's ongoing failure to provide adequate reclaimed water for the Castle Oaks Golf Course, namely its failure to obtain the water quality permits or permit modifications required by state law necessary to allow for the provision of adequate reclaimed water to the Castle Oaks Golf Course without. use of the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM, any notice issued to date by IONE purporting to terminate its obligation to accept wastewater from ARSA, including its July 19, 2017, letter, is void and of no &wee and effect.
27. On or about December 3, 2021, ARSA sent separate correspondence to both ION1 and CDCR to confirm ARSA's right to dispose secondarily treated wastewater through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, copies of which are respectively attached as Exhibits "C" and "D" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
28. On or about January 19, 2022, IONE provided a response to ARSA's December 3, 2021, correspondence, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "E" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. IONE's January 19, 2022, correspondence reaffirmed its intention to cease services with ARSA as ofJuly 19, 2022. but indicated a willingness to extend the date upon entry into a new agreement with a new fee structure.
29. On or about January 28, 2022, ARSA sent further, separate correspondence to both IONE and CDCR setting forth ARSA's right to deliver secondary effluent through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and the WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, copies of which are respectively attached as Exhibits "F" and "G" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
30. On or about February 3, 2022, ARSA responded directly to IONE's January 19, 2022, correspondence, in Ibrm ing IONE that any action taken to prevent, reduce, interrupt. interfere with, or circumvent ARSA from delivering its effluent to IONE would be a breach of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and a violation ofthe WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240, but accepted 82456.00002\40680950. I - 7 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2
4 6
7 8
I()
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 72
23 24
75 26
27 18
IONE's offer to meet and confer regarding the matter. A copy of ARSA's February 3, 2022, letter is attached as Exhibit "H" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
31. In or about March 2022, ARSA and IONE began engaging in substantive discussions regarding the outstanding issues concerning ARSA's discharge of wastewater from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP. In furtherance of these discussions, IONE transmitted correspondence to ARSA outlining several deal points for negotiation of a new agreement on or about July 20, 2022, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "I" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. IONE's July 20. 2022, correspondence stated that negotiation of a new agreement would extend its willingness to accept wastewater under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT until either approval of the new agreement by IONI-3 and ARSA, or February 1, 2024. if no new agreement was reached.
32. On or about July 29, 2022, ARSA provided its response to ION F's July 20, 2022. correspondence. a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "J" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. While ARSA expressed its willingness to attempt to negotiate a new agreement. ARSA advised IONE that ARSA was prepared to seek all available remedies under the law should IONE refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT.
33. On or about August 16, 2022, IONE transmitted its response to ARSA's July 29. 2002, letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "K" hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Among other items, IONE's August 16, 2022, correspondence repeated its purported right to refuse wastewater from ARSA under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT as of July 31, 2022.
34. On multiple occasions over the past several months, IONE refused to accept wastewater from ARSA. but later accepted a small amount of discharges. Since August 31, 2022, however. IONE has continued to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA.
35. On or about September 8, 2022, ARSA provided timely written notice to IONE that IONE's refusal to accept wastewater from ARSA constitutes a breach of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and stated ARSA's intention to meet and confer with IONE in an attempt to bring 82456.O(.)002\40680950. - 8 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 3
4 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
?1
2423
25 26
27 28
IONE into compliance with the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. ARSA advised IONE that should IONE continue to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA. ARSA would have no choice but to pursue any and all available remedies under the law against IONE in order to enforce ARSA's rights under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. A copy of ARSA's September 8, 2022. letter is attached as Exhibit "I.," hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
36. Despite ARSA's ongoing efforts to resolve the outstanding issues with IONE, IONE continues to refuse to accept wastewater from ARSA through the lower HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM in accordance with IONE's obligations under the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT.
ARSA is also informed and believes and thereon alleges that CDCR continues to transmit wastewater from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass Preston Reservoir in violation of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, the LEASE, WDRs ORDER NO. R5-2015-0129, and W R Rs ORDER NO. 93-240.
37. Preston Reservoir is currently near its maximum capacity. The present inability of ARSA to discharge wastewater from Preston Reservoir to the COWRP will result in Preston Reservoir being unable to withstand the higher flows that may occur during the upcoming rainy season, Preston Reservoir overflowing, and/or ARSA having to discharge effluent on other lands in violation of the WRRs ORDER NO. 93-240. thus creating significant public health and water quality contamination issues. In light of the quickly approaching rainy season, and given the limitations on how much wastewater can be treated at the COWRP on a daily basis, the need to discharge wastewater from Preston Reservoir is immediate.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Injunctive Relief Against IONE and Does 1-10)
38. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
39. IONE breached the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT by failing to perform its obligation to annually accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir, and by accepting wastewater directly from CDCR from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
82456.00002\40680950. I - 9 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
BEST &KRIEGER LLP
3 4
5 6
7 8
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
23 24
?,5
26 27
28 40. ARSA performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. except for those covenants and conditions ARSA was prevented or excused from performing.
41. ARSA has no other adequate remedies at law or in equity to seek redress for ION E's continuing violations of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and therefore seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining IONE from refusing to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir, and restraining IONE from accepting wastewater directly from CDCR and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Injunctive Relief Against CDCR and Does 11-20)
42. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
43. CDCR breached the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT by discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
44. CDCR also breached the LEASE by discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
45. ARSA performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on its part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and LEASE, except for those covenants and conditions ARSA was prevented or excused from perform in L!.
46. ARSA has no other adequate remedies at law or in equity to seek redress for CDCR's continuing violations of the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and LEASE and therefore seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief restraining CDCR from discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTIM.
/ /
/ / /
82456.00002\40680950. I - 10 -
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 4
8 10
I 1
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
?4
25 26
27 28
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief Against All Defendants)
47. ARSA hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 of the Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
48. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between ARSA and DEFENDANTS concerning their respective rights and duties. ARSA contends, and ARSA is informed and believes that DEFENDANTS deny, that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT, and that CDCR is not permitted to discharge, and IONE is not permitted to accept, wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
49. ARSA desires a _judicial determination of the respective rights and duties of ARSA and DEFENDANTS, namely declarations that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT. and that CDCR is not permitted to discharge. and IONE is not permitted to accept, wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM.
50. Such declarations are necessary and appropriate at this time in order that ARSA may ascertain its rights and duties with respect to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT and/or LEASE.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREAS, ARSA demands judgment against DEFENDANTS for the following:
1. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining IONE from refusing to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir;
2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining IONE from accepting wastewater directly from CDCR and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
3. For a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining CDCR from discharging wastewater directly from the MCSP W WTP to the COWRP and bypassing the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
/ / /
82456.00002\40650950 1
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
&KRIEGER LPBEST
ATFORNEYS (..oDIEGO. CL SAN
1 6
7 8
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
"V)
?"1
24 25
26 27
28 4. For a judicial determination and declaration that IONE is obligated to accept from ARSA secondarily treated wastewater from Preston Reservoir pursuant to the WASTEWATER AGREEMENT;
5. For a judicial determination and declaration that CDCR is not permitted to discharge wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the FIENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
6. For a judicial determination and declaration that IONE is not permitted to accept wastewater directly from the MCSP WWTP to the COWRP and bypass the HENDERSON/PRESTON SYSTEM;
7. For attorneys' fees pursuant to paragraph 18 ofthe LEASE and costs ofsuit incurred herein: and
8. For such other and further relief the Court may deem proper.
Dated: September 16, 2022 BEST BEST & KRIEGER 1_,LP
By:
82456.00002\40680950.1 - 12 -
SHAWN D. HAGERTY
MATTHEW L. GREEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CITY OF SANTEE
COMPLAINT FOR !Mt 1NCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
EXHIBIT A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEASE COVERING PREMISES LOCATED AT
Mule Creek Prison and Preston Youth
Correctional Facility
Amador County
AGENcy,
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
REAL PROPERTY NOS.: 43 and 1575
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
REAL ESTATE SERVICES DIVISION
GROUND LEASE
Lease No.: L-2070
Lessee: Amador Regional Sanitation Authority
This Lease, dated for reference purposes only, January 1, 2009, by and between the State of California, acting by and through the Director of General Services (DGS), with the consent of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), hereinafter collectively referred to as STATE, and the Amador Regional Sanitation Authority (ARSA), a joint powers authority, hereinafter referred to as LESSEE.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CDCR has under its jurisdiction certain real properties located in the County of Amador, State of California, commonly known as the Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) and the Preston Youth Correctional Facility, formerly known as lone Youth Authority, and hereinafter referred to as "Preston"; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 14672.100, the Director of the Department of General Services, with the consent of CDCR, may lease real property appurtenant to or part of Preston, which real property is located in Amador County and further described in this Lease to ARSA (LESSEE) for a term not to exceed thirty (30) years and at a rate of one dollar ($1.00) per year for its continued use as a wastewater delivery and disposal system; and WHEREAS, CDCR owns a series of pipelines and reservoirs, each of which interconnect to allow the transport of water and or wastewater, which is known as Henderson/Preston System. The Henderson/Preston System, hereinafter referred to as the "Premises", is depicted in "Supplement #2 to Appendix L of Amador County Wastewater Management Plan", dated November 1977, and hereinafter referred to as the "Water Plan". Per the Water Plan, said Premises is composed of an upper element and a lower element. The upper element consists of the area from the outfall of the Sutter Creek Treatment Plant to Preston, including all pipelines, rights of way, reservoirs, and water rights. The lower element includes the components that lie below Preston Forebay to the outfall of the pipeline where it enters Castle Oaks property, including Preston Reservoir. Said Water Plan defines and illustrates the elements of the Henderson/Preston System, is marked Exhibit "A", consists of two (2) pages and is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the City of lone, LESSEE and CDCR, entered into the "Agreement to Regulate Use of Henderson/Preston Wastewater Disposal System", hereinafter referred to as "Agreement for Wastewater", dated September 18, 2007. Said Agreement governs the wastewater disposal rights and obligations among the parties to the Agreement, is marked Exhibit "B", which consists of nine (9) pages, and is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, LESSEE currently occupies the Premises per the "Agreement for Wastewater Management" dated March 22, 1977, which agreement shall be superseded by this Lease and the Agreement for Wastewater; and
WHEREAS, STATE is willing to lease the Premises to the LESSEE, and LESSEE is willing to lease the Premises from STATE, on the conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby mutually agreed as follows:
LESSEE: ARSA Page 1 of 12 Lease No.: L-2070
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
REAL ESTATE SERVICES DIVISION
DESCRIPTION
TERM
USE
LESSEE'S
OBLIGATION FOR
WATER
DIVERSION
RENT
FEE
LESSEE: ARSA
WITNESSETH
1. STATE does hereby lease to LESSEE, and LESSEE hereby hires from STATE, the Premises, as further described and depicted in the Water Plan, Exhibit "A" to this Lease.
2. The term of this Lease shall be for a period of twenty-nine (29) years eight (8) months to commence on January 1, 2009, and shall terminate on September 18, 2037, to coincide with the termination date of the Agreement for Wastewater.
3. (a) LESSEE agrees to use the leased Premises to transport water and wastewater through the Premises pursuant to the Agreement for Wastewater, attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and by this reference made a part hereof. (b) All activities upon the Premises will be conducted hereunder only in a manner which will not interfere with the orderly operation of the MCSP and Preston.
4. (a) LESSEE agrees to annually divert a minimum of 250 acre/feet of water and a maximum of 1,100 acre/feet, from the Sutter Creek point of diversion in order to maintain STATE's water rights, as is more particularly described in the Water Plan, Exhibit "A' to this Lease. STATE reserves all of its water rights including the water rights for diversion from Sutter Creek at a maximum level of 1,100 acre/feet; and
(b) LESSEE shall maintain and supply upon reasonable request documentation of water diversion rates. Said documentation shall be sent to:
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Facilities Management Branch
9838 Old Placerville Road, Suite B
Sacramento, California 95827
(c) STATE reserves its claim to receive not less than 250 acre/feet of water annually for use at Preston.
5. The first annual rent payment shall be paid by the LESSEE in the amount of ONE DOLLAR AND 00/100s ($1.00), due and payable on January 1, 2009. Rent shall be payable annually in advance for the duration of the Lease, or at the LESSEE'S option, shall be paid in one lump sum in advance.
All rent payments shall be addressed and delivered to:
Department of General Services
Accounts Receivable PAL (L-2070)
P.O. Box 989053
West Sacramento, CA. 95798-9053
6. LESSEE will reimburse DGS for its costs related to the lease, including, but not limited to, any survey costs, title transfer fees, administrative costs, and department staff time. DGS will invoice for the fees and payment shall be made to DGS at the address shown above and shall be made by February 1, 2009.