HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05121992 - 1.5 (2) 1.50 & 1.53
TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Phil Batchelor / !� Costa
Executive Director .; �! 4°
J County
DATE: May 12 1992
SUBJECT: Water Service for West Pittsburg
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUPPORT Contra Costa Water 'District (CCWD) as the preferred water
provider for West Pittsburg; REAFFIRM May 21, 1991 preliminary
financial commitment of $1. 5 million over 15 years to CCWD out of West
Pittsburg Redevelopment Tax Increments; and DIRECT the Deputy Director
of Redevelopment to negotiate preferred uses for these funds with
CCWD, with the specific provision that a portion of the $1.5 million
be used to fund a program to make loans to West Pittsburg residents
to upgrade home water pipelines, the specifics of this program to be
brought back to the Board for approval. The remainder of the funds to
be used by the District for other water distribution improvements.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ' X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA OF AGE CY COMMIT E
APPROVE OTHER
i
SIGNATURE(S) :
ACTION OF BOARD Y/ON Nay12, 1992 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
It is by the AGENCY ORDERED that the recommendation is APPROVED with additional
conditions as follows: (1) Approximately 30% of the Agency's preliminary
financial committment must be dedicated to a home plumbing renovation program
in the early years; (2) that CCWD commit to retaining current Cal Cities Water
employees in West Pittsburg; and (3) that CCWD take steps necessary to minimize
disruption to West Pittsburg residents in construction work.
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS/SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Cc: Community Development
County Counsel ATTESTED May 12, 1992
County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR,
Redevelopment Agency AGENCY SECRETARY
(via Redevelopment Agency)
West Pittsburg Project
Area Committee BY9 , DEPUTY
Contra Costa Water District —4m
California Cities Water I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
CN2/ccwdbd.ord TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED Play 12. 1992. .
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
D CO Y ADMINISTRATOR
BY Deputy
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation involves Redevelopment Agency tax increments
only. No General Fund monies are involved. The use of Redevelopment
Agency tax increments for water distribution system improvements
will present opportunity costs for the Agency because it would
divert funds that could be used for other. improvements.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Contra Costa Water District has been evaluating options under
which the District may be able to provide treated water service
directly to West Pittsburg. Among it options has been the
acquisition of the West Pittsburg water system, which is owned and
operated by the Southern California Water Company (Cal Cities
Water) . In order to provide structure to its acquisition
discussions, on May 21, 1991 the Agency Board made a preliminary
commitment to CCWD for the $1.5 million. A full discussion of the
issues is included in the May 21, 1991 Board Order (Attachment A) .
CCWD has prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) on the acquisition of Cal Cities Water existing facilities,
and the construction of a main pipeline from CCWD's Bollman Water
Treatment Plant in Concord to West Pittsburg. It found that it
would be feasible to do this and described the impacts and
mitigations of constructing the pipeline and commencing service.
CCWD indicated to West Pittsburg residents that it would not pursue
the acquisition of Cal Cities existing water facilities unless the
community supported its doing so, and would wait until both the
West Pittsburg Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) and the West
Pittsburg Project Area Committee (PAC) made recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors/Redevelopment Agency before the CCWD Board of
Directors made a final decision.
The (MAC) and the (PAC) jointly held a series of public meetings to
ensure that West Pittsburg residents had the opportunity for input
into the process prior to either group's decisionmaking. Following
the public meetings, on March 23, 1992 , the MAC voted to support
the Contra Costa Water District as the preferred water company for
West Pittsburg. It requests that the Board of Supervisors take a
similar action. The MAC based its action on the following:
1. Long term water quality would be better with CCWD.
2 . CCWD would better contain water costs.
3 . The West Pittsburg community would better be served by a
public entity such as CCWD, than it has been by a
private, profit-motivated water provider.
4. Public sentiment favored CCWD taking over as water
provider.
This action is documented in a letter signed by Rena B. Wruble,
President of the MAC, dated April 14, 1992 (attachment B) .
The PAC, on April 8, 1992, voted to support continued water service
from Cal Cities Water. The PAC voiced concerns about the following:
1. West Pittsburg, as a relatively small community, would
lose its identity in the larger CCWD water system, and
would not be able to have adequate input into decisions
about water rates or other CCWD expenditures.
2 . Recent newspaper articles exposed management problems
resulting in loss of funds to CCWD, which could translate
into costs to the consumers.
3 . CCWD could not be certain about its water rates until it
knew the final acquisition cost of the Cal Cities system.
Since Cal Cities is not a willing seller, price would be
determined through condemnation. Therefore the final
acquisition and rate costs' would not be known at the time
CCWD actually took over the system.
4 . $100, 000 annually in Redevelopment tax-increment funds
would better be spent on other pressing community needs.
In addition, the PAC based its action on a petition it received
from 40 residents, supporting Cal Cities Water.
Staff's recommendation is based on information contained in the
EIR, and on economic information provided by CCWD (Attachment C) .
Staff recommends that the Board support CCWD's proposal for the
following reasons:
1. Consumer costs will be less with CCWD, assuming
condemnation of Cal Cities Water does not exceed $12. 2
million.
2 . Accountability to the community is better served with
CCWD, because it is a public entity, and the community
will have access to its elected Board of Directors,
3 . Water quality consistency will be better with CCWD,
because it is a larger provider and because of its state
of the art Bollman facility,
4. The Municipal Advisory Council, the elected
representative body in West Pittsburg supports CCWD.
5. CCWD has programs, such as its Lifeline rates, etc. for
low-income rate-payers and has agreed to assist West
Pittsburg residents both financially and with technical
assistance to upgrade home pipelines, which .will further
improve water quality.
6. Upgrading an essential infrastructure such as water
service is an appropriate and long-term beneficial
expenditure of Redevelopment tax increment funds.
CONTRA COSTA --J i fi
TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CI MAY
7, F�. .. Contra
24 AM 59
j V V, ,
FROM: Phil Batchelor r
Executive Director a
DEV FtM1
DATE: May 21, 1991 COLM
SUBJECT: West Pittsburg Water Distribution Improvements
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS(S) is BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve ..the recommendation of the West Pittsburg Project Area
Committee to provide a preliminary financial commitment of $1.5
million over 15 years to the Contra Costa Water District for water
distribution improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation involves Redevelopment Agency tax .increments only.
No General Fund monies are involved. The use of Redevelopment Agency
tax increments for water distribution system improvements will present
opportunity costs for the' Agency because it would divert funds that
could be used for other improvements.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
The Contra Costa Water District has been evaluating options under
which the District may be able to provide wholesale or retail treated
water service to West Pittsburg. Among the options is acquisition of
the West Pittsburg water system which is owned and operated by the
Southern California Water Company (Cal Cities Water) . Investigations
of CCWD have been driven by a perception that West Pittsburg customers
want improved water service, and that CCWD is the best party to
provide it; and that the cost of service is too high when compared to
the value of services received.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE: el�
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA OF AGEN Y COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES)
ACTION OF AGENCY ON May 21, 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
I. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
_2L UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: Community Development
County Administrator ATTESTED May 21, 1991
County Counsel PHIL BATCHELOR,
Redevelopment Agency AGENCY SECRETARY
(via Redevelopment Agency)
West Pittsburg Project
Area Committee
Contra Costa Water District BY 01 , DEPUTY
California Cities Water
SRA14/jb/wtrimprv.bos
Recently there have been several material changes that gave cause
to CCWD to evaluate alternatives. Changes both in the availability
of funds for financing, and the availability of water from CCWD
have occurred. In re-evaluating the acquisition opportunities,
CCWD considered the following new information:
1. Contra Costa County is in the process of completing the
planning and engineering for a new Bailey Road interchange.
The construction of the interchange will require relocation
and demolition of Cal Cities Water Madison Treatment Plant.
The County will have to pay an estimated $332 - $4h million for
relocation of said facility. This amount could be made
available to finance a pipeline for treated water from CCWD,
obviating the need for a new treatment plant in West
Pittsburg;
2. CCWD now has the Randal/Bold Treatment Plant under
construction onstruction and is actively pursuing options for supplying
treated water to areas not currently provided treated water by
CCWD. West Pittsburg is a potential customer for this treated
water; and
3. A portion of the West Pittsburg area is part of a County
Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Agency is a prospective
source of funds to finance -improvements to the water
distribution system in order to improve the quality of
service.
CCWD is currently analyzing three options for detailed analysis and
consideration. These options are.
1. . No action;
2. Sale of wholesale treated water to Cal Cities Water; and
3. The purchase of the Cal Cities water system by CCWD.
The attached March 13 preliminary analysis of West Pittsburg
Service Options details the options and their impact on water rates
and the District's rate payers. CCWD preliminary analysis
indicates that acquisition of the current privately owned water
system can be achieved with no. increase in rates to West Pittsburg
rate payers under the following assumptions:
1. Acquisition costs equal $8 million;
2. CCWD is able to secure the County location funds from the
Bailey Road interchange project; and
3. The Redevelopment Agency finances approximately $1.5 million
improvement in a water distribution system improvements over
15 years.
In order to provide structure to their acquisition discussions,
CCWD requested that the Redevelopment Agency provide a preliminary
commitment of $1.5 million over 15 years for water distribution
system improvements. With a preliminary commitment, the CCWD staff
could pursue the various alternatives outlined with a preliminary
indication of those funds being available. The CCWD Board of
Directors had not authorized acquisition of the Cal Cities Water
system in West Pittsburg. The CCWD Board has only authorized its
staff to discuss the potential friendly sale of the water system or
the sale of treated water to -Cal Cities (rather than the current
situation in which untreated is sold to Cal Cities) . California
Cities Water Company has indicated it is not a willing seller. Cal
Cities Water has indicated it's desire to stay in the water
treatment and water distribution business in West Pittsburg. To
that end, Cal Cities had recently submitted a request to the Agency
for financing of water distribution system improvements of its
privately owned system.
WEST PrM8URG MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
3105 Willow Pass Road 92 A R IS PH 1:53
West Pittsburg, Cif 94565
Phone: (510) 458-1601 Far: (510) 458-1672OMP UNIT Y
DEVELOPMcN 'DEPT
COUNM weer"
Mw B.WtOk.PhvWew
seg 1vIMOM,"W-Preaem
MWINa WEE&y,saw
Meerb Palle.T?"Wff►
*erfts drewwm .
A7J A16e$ '
. Debrs ltsept
April 14, 1992
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County Administration Building
. 651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
re: Water Service for West Pittsburg
Dear Supervisors:
At the mid-March meeting of the Municipal Advisory Council, held
jointly with the Redevelopment Project Area Committee, the M.A.C.
voted on the issue of whether California Cities Water (Southern
California Water Company) should continue as the water provider for
the West Pittsburg area, or whether we should support the Contra
Costa Water District proposed take over.
As you know, we have held many meetings to gather input from the
community on this issue. Even before the possibility of CCWD
coming in, the M.A.C. has addressed public concerns over the past
several years regarding the existing water quality. Supervisor
Torlakson has also addressed the issue at West Pittsburg Town Hall
meetings. At the most recent Town Hall meeting, nearly 200 people
attended and the comments were vehemently in favor of CCWD taking
over as servicer.
The M.A.C. voted to change providers and this letter confirms our
expression of the community's feeling that Contra Costa Water
District is the preferred water company for West Pittsburg. We
hope that you will support our community in its efforts with regard
to this issue.
Allow me to again thank you for holding the Supervisors meeting in
West Pittsburg on April 6, 1992.
Sincerely,``
R a B. Wruble, President
r_ APR— 3-92 FR I 9:59 CCWD ENGINEERING 51 06OZ8303 P. 02
C
_sem\11\COWM COSTA
WAlFR DISTRICT
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
2344 Sranaaei,Saile A
P.O.Box H2O
Concord,CA 94524
(544)674.9400 fAX(5!4}b03-8343
(%)439-9109 Ton Roe born
Easlem Conita Costa Counly
Directora
Ronald E.nutter -�..,.APdl Z 1992'
President
Daniel L Pene9rW
Vke Ate! _..
We Boatmun
Donakt P Robs
JoseM L cempW M.Ann Keltt>edy,Deputy Director
Ed seegminer Contra Costa County Redevelopment-Ag+ertcy
r-wwwmww 651 Pine Street,4th Floor,North Wing
Martinez,California 44553
Dearli=
RT: WEST P TTSBURtI
This tetter is in response to your request of Match 25, 1992 for clarification of some
issues by the District: I have restated your request and then provided our response.
"I. Would Contra Costa Water Distrler stili be interested in pursuing acquisition of
the California Cities !rarer System should the Redevelopment Agency not
financially participate tafthancing muter distribution ingarovements?"
To fully appreciate the,response, it is important to have a clear understanding of the
impact of'thekvcic>pmeat monies on the formulation tithe project. When C`C:WD fust
I
earned that a new water treatmern glanit was w be built in West Pittsburg,staff began to
develop an alternative project fvr consideration by the lout citizens,as is the policy of the
Boazri. The Board iole�atifitxl Error criteria for art acceptable prcject<
1. Tineproject has to make draely improvements in water quality for West Pittsburg
Customers.
2. The project has to improve service fvc West Pittsburg customers.
4 -
3,._ The West Pittsburg customers have to select CCWD to provide service.
4. The project has to make econrxnk sense for both West Pittsburg customers and
CCWD Treated Water Service Area.(TWSA)cushxners.
To provide improved water quality in a timely manner, staff proposed connecting West
Pittsburg to the Bollman Treatment Plant which provides Trona~consistent quality water
than is currently ntly available from the Cal Cities planta CCWD staff has detc rmined that an
even higher quality water can be supplied at the tap by upgrading the kxA distribution
system. In 1941,when the PAC approved up to $100,000 per year for 10 years to help
upgrade the distribution system, criteria 1 and 3 were assumed mcL Satisfied that the
conceptual project developed by staff met 0 four criteria, the Board authorized the
APR- 3-92 FRI 9:00 CCWD ENGINEERING 510603azez P_03 i.
Mr.Jim Kennedy
RE; West Pittsburg
April 2,1992
Page 2
expenditure of over$300.000 to complete the formulation phase of the project so that the
cummers of West Pittsburg could have a viable option to consider.
All redevctopmcnt monies will be spent locally on the distribution system upgrades to
insure improved water quality. Without the mbney,West Pittsburg distribution system
needs will be prioritized with all the TWSA needs and completed as funds are available
from the renewal and mplaccmmt fund. A Board policy is that all TWSA customers are
treated equally unless there'is an arca-specific additional funding source. In the past,
assessment or improvement districts have betel formed in Some areas to accelerate local
improvements. In this case the redevelopment funds provide that vehicle. Without the
finds,the staff cannot certify to the Boat timely improvement in local water quality
can be assured.
In addition,several Board members have expressed the concern that if the local authority
is not prepared to make a commitment of$100"per year of redevelopment monies to
4nove local water quality,why should CCWIa be willing to be at risk for an investment
of 17 to$35 million to improve water quality and service, _
In summary,it is not clear that staff will be able to teoommend the Project asproviding a
txmel�r iinfsrovemew in wat3cr q�without the West 1�ttsburg Pwiect Area Committee
s1lvwing an aeceherated schedule a distribertion sysbern improvements. N staff decides to
cecomtnend the project anyway,xt will pz�obably be a ciiffic sell to the Board because
they may perceive that the local authority is not wailiivag to work together to solve the
critical needs of the west P'iittsbnrg water cusmrricrs.
Do the cost estimates contained in your February 3, 1992 analysis(provided to
the community at the Town Halt meeting) Include all estimated capital
expenditures to the extent they are knowable? Some Project Area Committee
members have expressed concern that all casts associated with extending the
tread water line to West Pittsburg are ntor provided for in these estimates. Please
clarify."
Attached are the cost summaries from the public meeting supplemented with the
additional information derived from the meeting. This analysis includes all the capital
expenditures expected.to the extent that they can be estimated at this time. The pipeline
--estimate includes a contingency for the anticipated special handling required for the kvrl
of contarninated soils orpected. The estimate also includes all the minor changes at pomp
stations,etc.,to provide proper service from a pipeline rather than 2 planta.
As has been discussed extensively, the major unknown is the purchasepuce. The
attached information includes the rate impact if the purchase price is$6.2. S 15.or$2S
million. We have not yet negotiated with the County for she abandonment of the Madison
Treatment Plant. Relocatiou funds could rangy anywhere between$3 and$6 million, To
the best of our knowledge,the estimates that have been provided include all the cappital
and operation costs to maks service to a West Pittsburg customer equivalent to a TVVSA
customer.
APR- 3-92 FRI 9:01 CCWD ENGINEERING 5106038303 P.04
• Mir.JIM Kennedy
RE: West Pittsburg
April 2, 1992
Page 3
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these Wcst Pittsburg Meet Area Committee
conte m Please let me know if I can provide any other information.
Very truly
David A. .
DiiecW of Eagi�eering
(510}6748060
J?.nclasuz+ea
PROJECT NO.192070
APR— 3-92 PRI 9:01 CCWD ENGINEERING 5106038303 P.05
r
WHST pX'ffS]3URG ANALYSIS
199�3r�sG�r�+�,pTQ,�► 1993Y��COW RAM
m w.UST
mmx—nW WATM IDWACT 1''ITMMUR.G
SOURM OF FUND:
$45,9 , 00 $4$
0 ,575AW
WaW Sales 007,400,000
Iuberost Earnings&Other 7,3a0,aoa
Revenues
1tat a Stab3ilivation Ftmd Dm 4,70x,{}0{} x,700,040
0
Fids f v=Bond Sada
13 ►�Q
County 1telacation mmay 0 4,400„0110
0 100,004
ge�y,�opanent Fends
TOTAL MONEY'AVAILABLE $57,900"000 $77,975,000
USES OF FUNDS, -
Qpmtims &M6mtenAum $24j200 004 '
Revenue Financed Capital
1901-00,000 19,100,000
Projects
1416,675,000
Payment on Debt Outstadiug
,6t}a,
West Pittsburg System. 6,200,000
Purchase Price 0
Reservoir
0 4,000,004 .
� � p 5,500,000
vements 0 1,000,000
Distr%ution bnpro
System Modifications 0 500,000
TOTAL COSTS: ' " $b7,900,000 $77,975,004
SALES IN ACRE FEET82,571 s� 2t
10.90
RATE INCREASE FORECAST �.� $48.7 6
400 GAIMAY CUSTOMER
$48.775 $48.74
AvFRAGE MONTHLY COST
For every $1 million increase in. the Southern California Cities
Water acquisition cost, the average customer will see about a $0.10
per month impact on their bill.
APR- 3-92 FRI 9:02 CCWD ENGINEERING 5106038303 F. 06
I r +
FMTE COMPARISON
CCWD/SOUTHERN CAI"OItNrA CITM WATER
MOMMY RATE COMPARISON
400 gal per day,customer
CCWR SO. CAI,11?'.
CITIIS WATER
JAN - 1989 $24.00 $17.70
JAN - 1990 $29.50 $29.47
JAN - 1991 $35.60 $3.7.06
JUN - 1991 $35.60 $40.11
JAN - 1992 $43.90 $4507
JAN - 1993
($6.2 Mil).ion) $48.75 $49.35
($15 Million) $49.67
($25 Million) $50.67
• For every$1 million increase in the purchase price of the West
Pittsburg system, the average monthly CCWD bill will increase
10 cents.
• Through 19%, West Pittsburg customers would have to pay,
through their property tax bill, about $8-$9 per Year toward
Bond repayment for CCWD I.D. #1. GBased on an saseaeed
value of$150,000.)