Montara, California

1. Approve Minutes for Meeting of October 1, 1998.

2. Approve Financial Statements for June, July, August and September 1998.
3. Approve Warrants for November 5, 1998.
4. Monthly Review of Current Investment Portfolio.
5. Flow Reports for September 1998.

2. Review and Possible Action Concerning a Comprehensive Plan to Reduce Inflow and Infiltration.

1. Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside Meetings (Thollaug)

2. MidCoast Community Council Meeting (Perkovic)
3. District Administrator's Report (Irving)

1. Review and Possible Action Concerning Properties Located within Seal Cove.
2. Review and Possible Action Concerning Complaint from Joan Fernandez Regarding Franchise with Seacoast Disposal Company.
3. Review and Possible Action Concerning Proposed Handout for Property Owners Intending to Build a New Home.
4. Review and Possible Action Concerning Issuance of Sewer Permits.
5. Review and Possible Action Concerning Connection Fee Charges on Existing Parcels for Remodeling and Other Actions.

1. Review and Possible Action Concerning Annual Audit for FY 1997/98.
2. Review and Possible Action Concerning Review of Sewer Service Charge for Property at 036-073-560.
3. Review and Possible Action Concerning Request for Adjustment on Sewer Service Charge for FY 1998/99.
4. Review and Possible Action Concerning Review of Various District Boundaries and Service Areas.

1. Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(b)(2) regarding potential litigation: two cases.
2. Conference with legal counsel -- existing litigation pursuant to Government Code 54956.9 in the case of Nan Scott v. MSD.

Next Resolution: No. 1160; Next Ordinance: No. 113

The District has a curfew of 11:00 p.m. for all meetings. The meeting may be extended for one hour by vote of the Board.

Directors Present: Boyd, Perkovic, Ptacek, Slater-Carter, and Thollaug

Directors Absent: None

PRESIDENTâS STATEMENT None

PUBLIC HEARING None

ORAL COMMENTS Lou Wall urged the Board to pursue an alternative for certification of the new plant capacity with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He recommended that the annual plant inspection scheduled for September be advanced to coincide with the certification of the expanded plant capacity to avoid the delay in making the added capacity available.

Brenda Donald provided a letter for distribution to the Board and spoke to the need to get the new plant certified without further delay. Her letter was included with the Board packet and a copy is attached to the Minutes.

1. Review and Possible Action Concerning Agreement with Balance Hydrologics, Inc., to Perform Certain Consultant Services. Director Thollaug moved to adopt RESOLUTION No. 1159, RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH BALANCE HYDROLOGICS, INC., not to exceed $15,000.00. Director Slater-Carter seconded and the motion carried by unanimous consent.

2. MidCoast Community Council Meeting. Director Perkovic stated there was nothing to report relevant to District business.

3. District Administratorâs Report. None

With regard to Section 2 (proposed Ordinance 113) amending Section 3-5.500 (of Ordinance 109), District Counsel was asked to tie the proposed language to San Mateo Countyâs regulations. Additionally, the amendment of 3-9.500 (a) should be broken out into separate items (a), (b), (c), and (d).

CLOSED SESSION

1. Pursuant to Government Code 54956.9(b)(2) regarding potential litigation: two cases. At 10:58 the Board came out of Closed Session and President Ptacek reported that no action was taken.

Respectfully Submitted,

Signed________________________________________________

Secretary

Approved on the 05^th of November 1998,

Signed_________________________________________________

President

Enclosures (2): 1. Brenda Donald Letter to the Board

2. Flow Reports for August 1998

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

The Districtâs Investment Policy and Guidelines requires that the Board review the status of the current investment portfolio. The District has all of its idle funds (except bond funds) deposited in the State of Californiaâs Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The August 1998 Statement from LAIF is attached. In addition, the following summarizes the information on the bond funds:

• USDA Bond Reserve Account is deposited with Wells Fargo Bank. In April 1997 these funds were transferred to a higher interest bearing one year CD with an annual percentage yield (APY) of 4.82%. This CD was rolled over for another year on April 20, 1998 with the same interest rate of 4.82% APY.
• Seal Cove Reserve Fund is deposited with Wells Fargo. In April 1997 the funds were transferred to a higher interest bearing one year CD with an annual percentage yield (APY) of 4.82%. This security was rolled over for another year on April 16, 1998 with the same interest rate of 4.82% APY.
• First Trust California handles the Reserve Fund of the Certificates of Participation and monies were also transferred to two CD s. The six-month CD rolled over on July 24, 1998 at Southern Pacific Thrift and Loan from a rate of 5.8% to 5.7% with a maturity of January 25, 1999. The other CD is at First Bank of St Paul, MN, and rolled over on March 11, 1998 at a rate of 5.3% APY. First Trust California was recently sold to US Bank.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and file.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

The Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) has prepared the following attached reports for the SAM Board of Directors and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board:

• Flow Report for September 1998
• Self-Monitoring Report - September 1998

The Average Daily Flow of the District for September 1998 was 0.375 MGD. During that time there was 0.15 inches of precipitation. There were no reportable sewer overflows in the District during September 1998.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and file.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

One of the issues that was raised as a result of the State Department of Water Resource's water study was the Health and Safety Code requirements for designation as a water system operator. The State Department of Health Services indicated that the State Health and Safety Code is the primary law which determines what is considered a public water system. Section 116280 of the Code appears to exempt certain agencies that provide only distribution and storage and not collection and treatment.

RECOMMEDNATION:

Designate the Water Committee to meet with District Counsel to review this matter and present a recommendation to the full Board at a subsequent meeting.

Attachment

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

At the last meeting, the Board authorized smoke testing of an area in the older section of Montara with about 200 homes. The flow metering that was done earlier during the winter and fall months indicated that this area might have the highest inflow within the District's service boundaries. The data indicated a direct and proportional increase in sewer flows as rainfall increased. The smoke testing took three workdays to complete and went smoothly with no problems or complaints. We hoped the testing would reveal some major inflow points, but it did not. The smoke testing revealed a few open cleanouts or connections but no major inflow sources. This raises a number of issues which the District must confront in deciding where we go from here. The purpose of this report is to give the Board a general overview, and is to begin the dialog on developing a comprehensive program to reduce inflow and infiltration.

In the 1970's, the Federal government, as part of the Clean Water Act, appropriated billions of dollars annually to fund publicly owned treatment plants and improvements. Guidelines at that time provided that no construction grant monies could be awarded unless it was documented that sewer systems discharging into treatment works were not subject to "excessive infiltration and inflow". Most grant programs predicted significant reductions in I & I, but they never materialized. In the early day's consultants and public agencies predicted reduction rates of 75 to 90 percent whereas the actual reductions were more like 5 to 25 percent.

In the 1980's the problem of I & I continued to grow. EPA began to change their emphasis from providing money to help agencies with these problems to enforcement. In 1984, EPA issued a deadline of July 1, 1988 for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit compliance. It required that this deadline be met with or without Federal funds. Peak flows were becoming much bigger than anyone predicted and so many treatment plants routinely bypassed most of the plant and emptied directly into streams or the ocean.

In the 1990's, local agencies and the Federal government began to recognize that sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) were a major problem. The emphasis shifted from

reducing I & Is to controlling overflows. In some cases, EPA, through the Department of Justice, cited agencies like Miami/Dade, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii for their overflow problems. In 1994, the Federal government formed the National SSO Committee, which examined a national policy on overflows. Out of the Committee meetings the following was indicated:

• SSO's can never be eliminated under all possible storm events. The questions are what is considered a significant number of SSO's per year and under what conditions they can be allowed?
• Multi-jurisdictional authorities normally receive sewage for treatment from several member agencies. Each agency has overflows and I & I problems but the authorities are the ones that are identified for enforcement.
• Far too little attention has been paid to private sewer laterals as a source of I& I.
• Not all I & I can be detected nor all detected I & I fixed, and SSOs will inevitably occur at some storm event.

No one knows. The Federal government is still trying to figure it out and may never come up with a standard that will be used in all states and among all jurisdictions. In 1985, EPA developed guidelines for funding construction of sewer plants. It provided that if the total daily flow from a storm did not exceed 275 gallons per capita per day, and there were no operational problems such as surcharges, bypasses or poor treatment performance from hydraulic overloading, no further I and I analysis was required. If Montara used that standard it may not have had to conduct further I & I analysis or take corrective action:

Assuming 1800 connections X 2.5 persons per connection = 4,500 estimated service population.

The peak wet weather flow during the wettest month last year (February 1998) had a flow of 0.849 MGD.

4,500 population

The above does not take the highest storm flow of the season but the highest average daily flow during the 1997/1998 wet weather season. However, it does give a sense of where Montara and the other member agencies may actually fit when compared to other areas of the nation. In October 1990, when the EPA construction grant program was eliminated, the national standards and guidelines were eliminated. Currently each state is allowed to develop their own standards. California has not developed any such standard.

As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the smoke-testing program that was just concluded in Montara did not find any major inflow sources. In reviewing various Federal studies it is apparent that in most cases what appears to be inflow is actually infiltration. The data provided by ADS Environmental Services showed a large immediate increase in flow at the various measuring points coincidental with the major rainfall recorded on February 21 and 23, 1998. In a 1990 report to Congress, EPA concluded the following:

• Rainfall-induced inflow and infiltration (RII) is actually infiltration but it resembles inflow because there is a rapid increase in flow, which mirrors the rainfall event, followed by a sharp decrease as the rain stops.
• Because of its flow characteristics, RII is sometimes misidentified as inflow. Consequently, rehabilitation programs aimed at inflow sources have not achieved the anticipated reductions.
• RII appears to represent a significant portion of the flow to some wastewater treatment plants during wet weather periods. In the ten case studies conducted by EPA, the peak wet weather flows were 3.5 to 20 times the dry weather flow. The contribution from RII was estimated to be between 60 and 90 percent of the wet weather flows with the remainder from groundwater infiltration and inflow.
• Collection and treatment systems often do not have the capacity to handle peak wet weather flows. Peak flows can cause wastewater backups into buildings, overflows and treatment system bypasses. These occurrences are a public health hazard.
• Sewer trenches can act as collectors of rainfall percolating into the soil. The trenches channel the water, thus providing multiple opportunities for water to seep into the collection system at defective points.

• The shallow portions of collection systems (e.g., laterals, manhole defects, etc.) are more vulnerable to RII. The larger sewer mains, which are typically deeper, do not appear to be a significant entry point for RII, but are more likely sources of groundwater infiltration, which normally minimizes peak to average flow ratios.
• The extent of RII problems in sanitary sewer systems is related to the age and condition of the sewers, material off construction, pipe, lateral and manhole defects, climate, geology, groundwater levels and depth of sewers. A test was conducted in the City of Berkeley to try to show the impact of rainfall on laterals. Their tests indicated that homes built before 1960 showed significantly more infiltration than homes built after that date. The tests also showed that these laterals were a major contributor to rainfall-induced infiltration into the sewer system (see attachment).

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) which provides sewer treatment to about seven East Bay cities conducted a multi-year study. Their collection system includes about 1,500 miles of sewer mains, owned and operated by the individual communities. They, as most agencies, have a sever problem with handling peak flows during wet weather. The findings of their investigation included:

• High peak flows occurred in response to rainfall. The ratio of peak wet weather flow to average dry weather flow was estimated to be about 20 to 1 for a five-year design storm.
• Identified direct inflow accounted for less than five percent of the total rain-induced extraneous flows.
• From smoke testing programs, numerous pipe defects were detected in building laterals.
• Numerous defects were observed in sewer mains and laterals through TV inspection programs.
• Very few direct storm drain/sanitary sewer interconnections were found.
• Laterals exhibited peak flow responses to actual rainfall and to simulated rainfall tests.
• Most laterals given air or water leakage test failed such tests.

It is clear from the studies funded by EPA over the last twenty years that inflow and infiltration is a major problem experienced by all sewer agencies. It is not subject to a quick, low-cost fix. Nationally, privately-owned sewer laterals, which may contribute more than 50% of the total inflow and infiltration, tend to be ignored. The reasons for this are not hard to understand. Any program placing significant costs on taxpayers is bound to be unpopular and controversial. The costs can be high--ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 to replace a sewer lateral. Public agencies can more easily control their collection systems without the large investment in administrative overhead, and public outreach that is needed to repair or replace privately-owned sewer laterals.

Another aspect of this problem should also be recognized before a comprehensive program can be developed. EPA reports indicate that programs which try to fix systems on a defect-by-defect basis, may not be effective. They found that water migration was a significant aspect of understanding the total problem. A sewer defect fixed in one place results in water that would have infiltrated into that area merely continues to flow downward and enters other cracks and defects elsewhere in the system. This is why both sewer laterals and sewer mains should both be addressed and these in turn should be looked at in the larger context of basins. Montara may be particularly vulnerable to migration. The large number of steep hills with trenches may force water not entering the system at one point to continue to flow downward along the pipe until other cracks allow the water to enter the sewer system down stream.

The following are some possible methods that could be used as part of a comprehensive program to reduce I & I:

• Televise the entire system. About ten years ago the District televised the entire District-owned sewer system and repaired the major problems identified at that time. It may be useful to televise it again, but we suspect that there will not be major new problem areas revealed. In the last ten years, there have not been any major changes such as development, major increases of traffic on public streets, etc which would sharply change what was found ten years ago.
• Currently the District has advised real estate offices in the midcoast that illegal roof and yard drains should be eliminated as well as any other defects in sewer laterals prior to the sale of a house. This has generated some interest in privately-owned laterals but we are not aware of any major repairs being made.

• Require homes that are to be sold to provide the District with a video showing the condition of their lateral and requiring repairs to any defective lines. This program would involve a significant increase in staff time to review the videos, follow up on repairs and correspond with residents and real estate agents to explain and enforce the program. The District has no way of knowing when homes are for sale. It can only know a few months after the sale when the County records payment of the documentary tax paid by the seller after the home closes escrow. This program would have to enforce any repairs before close of escrow since after that time the District looses all leverage and it becomes difficult to enforce repairs.
• The District is considering requiring the homeowner to provide a video tape of the lateral of homes which are remodeling where the cost of the improvements represent 50% or more of the total cost of the existing house. This is also difficult to enforce. There currently exists a good method of identifying remodeling because the County Building Department requires the District to first review plans when the remodeling involves the change of fixture units. However, currently the homeowner comes to the District to get approval before the County will process the building permit. The only way the District can know the estimated value of the proposed improvements is to either estimate them itself or wait until the County makes that determination. If the District waits for the County, the homeowner has to first pay the building permit fees and the County calculates the value of those improvements. The only way the District can do this is to approve the plans for submission to the County, but indicate to the homeowner that they may be required to submit a video of their sewer line. At that point, it will be difficult to enforce actual repairs to their lateral unless the County agrees to somehow withdraw or condition their building permit. The County will generally not enforce District requirements. They require agencies levying the requirement to enforce it themselves. This system should be evaluated in more depth before any program is instituted.
• The District could initiate a basin by basin I & I identification program by televising both laterals and sewer mains one area at a time. The advantage to this is that large areas would be dealt with at one time and presumably any repairs would be done with the idea that the entire basin must be dealt with. This avoids fixing one small area with the result that the rainwater merely migrates to openings further downstream in the same basin. Such a comprehensive system would be expensive to conduct and would probably identify repairs for a large number of private laterals. The District would probably have to hire a right-of-way agent to contact all the homeowners and insure that repairs were made. The would undoubtedly be public resistance to such a program because of the high individual cost.

• Nute Engineering, the District's Engineer, has been involved in some programs in the Marin and Alameda counties, which provide inducements to homeowners to fix their sewer laterals:

• The City of Albany requires property owners to make repairs to their lateral before the sale of their home. In addition, the City developed a program to repair laterals in the basin believed to have the worst problems (see attachment). No assessment district was created. The city hired a right of way agent to manage the program and deal with the property owners. One aspect of this program that requires careful legal review is the problem of the use of public funds for private purpose. The city apparently made a finding that elimination of infiltration was a public benefit, but others may not arrive at a similar conclusion. In addition, the impact of Prop 218 would have to be considered since that was not in effect when this program was implemented in Albany.
• The District could assume the responsibility for more of the laterals. Currently Granada Sanitary District and the City of Half Moon Bay assume the maintenance responsibility for the sewer lateral from the property line to the point of connection into the public sewer. They require a cleanout to be installed at the property line so that the agency can maintain that portion of the line without entry onto private property. The District could assume that responsibility providing the property owner installed the required cleanout and/or televised their portion of the lateral and made any necessary improvements. This might encourage property owners to upgrade their sewer laterals.

It is apparent from the foregoing that there are a number of alternatives that could be explored to reduce the inflow and infiltration problem. However, the following seems clear:

• Any program should include privately owned sewer laterals since they may represent the majority of the I & I problem.
• There are no easy and quick solutions. The involvement of the property owner greatly increases the political and administrative complexities of the solution. There will undoubtedly be considerable public resistance to any program requiring the property owner to pay to fix their sewer lateral. A program of enforcement will

• Any program will probably require an increase in staff. Hopefully that staff time could either be added on a contract basis managed through either SAM or the District.
• Before any program is implemented, there should be a careful and thorough review of all aspects of it and the impact on the public. There should not be a rush to implement something just to please the Regional Board or certain factions in the community. The entire problem should be looked at carefully, alternatives such as retention basins and other means of dealing with or storing the wet weather flows should be reviewed. In some cases, it may be cheaper to hold and treat much of the wet weather flow than to renovate the entire collection system (including laterals). In addition, consideration should be given to implementing a SAM-wide program so that developers and property owners have the same requirements throughout the system.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

On September 10, 1998, the attached report was presented to the Board. The report discussed the major assessment classifications, suggested a per parcel charge to reimburse the District for advanced funds and discussed maintenance responsibilities. As a result the Board requested staff to calculate the charge that would be necessary to reimburse the District based on the rate of return the District would have received had those monies been deposited in the State's Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF). The attached sheet shows the calculations used to arrive at that figure which is compared to using a standard 4% per year, compounded monthly, as follows:

The following would be the per parcel charge for each method of interest calculation:

The other major issue the Board wanted to review was the maintenance of grinder pumps that may be installed as part of the development of additional parcels in Seal Cove. The following summarizes the various assessment categories:

The Class 1 parcels were vacant and not expected to develop because they are located in the Geotechnical Hazard Zone 1 along Ocean Boulevard. The lots in this area that were occupied were included in Class 2 and paid for all portions of the project which included Type I and II costs. This class also included vacant lots that met County minimum development standards and were not located in Hazard Zone 1. Class 3 is similar to Class 2 except they benefit only from Type II costs, which resulted in a much lower assessment. Class 4 parcels were vacant and not assessed because they did not meet the County's minimum development standard. However, they would benefit from both Type I and II costs advanced by the District. Parcels in Class 5 were also vacant and did not meet County standards, but they would benefit only from Type II costs. The District also advanced monies for these costs that were to be paid back if the property developed.

Bond Counsel requested vacant Class 2 and 3 parcels be assessed less. The reason was that the vacant parcels were considered not to have the same opportunity to develop since sewer capacity was not available and was not anticipated until 1992. Therefore, the assessment for the occupied parcels was discounted by 18% since the net present value of the assessment in 1992 was considered to be only 82% of the value of the assessment made in 1986.

It seems clear that the commitment was made by the Board at that time to maintain and replace the grinder pumps for existing property owners. However, the lower assessment for vacant property was not because they were not to pay for the grinder pumps and other costs of installing such a system, but only because development of the lots were to come later. Therefore, the vacant properties did bear the cost of these grinder pumps. If the District decides not to continue the policy of installing and maintaining grinder pumps, the pro-rata cost of these items would apply only to Class 2 vacant property owners because they paid for Type I improvements which included grinder pumps. Class 3 vacant property owners, on the other hand, only paid for Type II costs, which did not include grinder pumps.

It is difficult to sort out the grinder pumps, laterals and related costs from the final project cost, but the following appears to be those Type I costs:

Grinder Pumps: $150,000

Grinder Pump Electrical Work: $ 30,000

Grinder Pump Laterals: $ 5,000

Sub-Total: $185,000

Engineering and Construction Mgmt.(20%): $ 37,000

Estimated Costs Allocated to Grinder Pumps

And Laterals: $222,000

This cost should be allocated among all Class 2 property owners, both vacant and developed, in order to get an approximate amount that the District could discount vacant property owners if the District was to require they install and maintain their own grinder pump. However, in order to be accurate we should add to that number the amount of property owners for whom the District advanced Type I costs since the District paid for part of the total cost of the project. The total number of parcels that should be counted is as follows:

Class 1 vacant parcels advanced by the District: 36

Class 2 vacant parcels paying assmt.: 34

Class 2 occupied parcels paying assmt.: 61

Class 3 not included--paid only Type II costs: 0

Class 4 vacant parcels advanced by the District: 16

Class 5 not included--paid only Type II costs: 0

Total 147

Therefore, 147 parcels bore the cost of the grinder pumps and associated costs. This means that the $222,000 should be divided by 147 to get the total per capita cost, which is $1,510.

Vacant property owners with Class 1 properties may be able to develop because the District advanced monies to pay for Seal Cove improvements. If they were given credit for the grinder pumps and accessories, then the District could require them to purchase and maintain any grinder pumps as other property owners do within the District. This would result in the following:

Class 1 per parcel assessment paid by District in 1986: $229,710

Less costs associated with grinder pumps ($1,510x 36): $ 54,360

$175,350

Class 4 parcel assessment paid by District in 1986: $108,474

Less costs associated with grinder pumps ($1510 X 16): $24,160

$84,314

Revised initial assessment without grinder pumps: $175,350

If this amount were then escalated according to the return on investment that the District could have received on these funds from 1986 to the present, the total amount owed for Class 1 parcels would be $390,250. If this was divided among the 36 parcels for whom that was paid, the per parcel charge in 1998 is $10,840. In the case of Class 4 parcels, the amount owed per parcel is $187,645 or $11,728 per parcel.

This methodology could be carried a step further in the case of Class 2 vacant properties with an assessment that included the grinder pumps and related items. In that case, they paid an assessment of $4,911 that was levied in 1986. If the District credited them for those pumps and accessories at time of development (1998), they would be credited as follows:

Per capita cost of grinder pumps and accessories in 1986: $1,510 per parcel

Adjustment to present value (3% per year for 12 years): $2,153 per parcel

If the Board credited the Sewer Connection Charge by $2,153, the District could require the property owners to install and maintain their own grinder pumps and laterals because the District reimbursed the property owner the value of that capital outlay. The value of 3% per year was used by the Assessment Engineer in the original Seal Cove Assessment District to discount the assessment for vacant properties (1992 to 1986 = 6 years Ö 18% discount = 3% per year). The charge paid in 1986 is escalated to get the present value of that money since money reimbursed today for a charge paid several years ago is worth less. In order to give the property owner full credit in today's dollars we must pay them more because a dollar buys less today than it did in 1986.

RECOMMMENDATION:

Direct the Master Fee Schedule to be revised to include the Seal Cove offset to connection charges and require properties developed in the future to install and maintain their own grinder pumps as required in other areas throughout the District. The developed properties with grinder pumps installed by the District would continue to be maintained by the District.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

At the last Board meeting, Director Perkovic reported of a complaint he received from Joan Fernandez of Montara concerning an incident involving Seacoast Disposal Company. She had apparently contracted with a company located in the Bay Area to drop off an empty container into which she could deposit some discarded materials. However, Seacoast Disposal Company, which services this area, found out about it and contacted both Ms Fernandez and the out-of-area disposal company. They were advised that Seacoast Disposal has the exclusive franchise for the Montara-Moss Beach area to remove all garbage, waste and recycling materials. Ms Fernandez then contacted Supervisor Gordon's office to complain and she was advised that according to the County Counsel such an exclusive franchise was not legal. Staff contacted Supervisor's Gordon's office and Joe Caruso confirmed that the County Counsel had indicated the District's franchise could not provide for such an exclusive right. Staff subsequently contacted District Counsel and requested they confer with County Counsel and advise the Board at the November meeting if any change in the District's franchise ordinance is advisable.

The current District Code clearly authorizes the District to enter into an exclusive arrangement with one company for all garbage collection services. This provision, which is common among Bay Area cities, was authorized by the District in 1966 (see excerpt of Code). Most recently, in 1992, the District approved an exclusive franchise with Seacoast Disposal lasting until the year 2001.

Seacoast Disposal confirmed the contact with Ms Fernandez was substantially as outlined above. They indicated their charge for the service requested by Ms Fernandez was less than the out-of-area hauler. A review of the 1997 revenues received by Seacoast for various services indicates that about 17% of their total revenues are from drop boxes and miscellaneous fees.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review, receive input from District Counsel, and advise staff of any action that should be taken.

Attachments

·..

2-6.700. Private Removal. It shall be unlawful for any Person to dispose of Refuse collected from or upon premises owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by such Person within the District other than by and through the Districtâs Collector and subject to these regulations; except for the disposal of Waste Matter pursuant to a Permit issued by the District or for the disposal of Refuse on or from Agricultural Premises pursuant to approval of the method of such disposal by the County Health Officer. (This section first adopted by Ordinance No. 16 except exclusion for agriculture was not included)

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

At the last meeting staff presented the attached material that was to be given to property owners and their contractors and architects. The Board requested that certain changes be made to the Application Form including:

• Improve the wording of the bottom portion of the first page.
• Add a legal disclaimer on page 2 of the bottom of the form.

District Counsel is developing a disclaimer and it will be added as soon as it is received. The Board asked if spas could be connected to the District's sewage system as part of new construction. There is no prohibition against them. In fact, Section 3-8.800 of the District's Code indicates that a swimming pool can be connected to the system in the manner specified by the District. This includes discharge piping, which should not exceed 2" in diameter, and shall "not be under a head to exceed twenty (20) feet". These requirements are also spelled out in the Standard Specifications adopted by the District in June 1998.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Approve the attached handout, with modifications suggested by District Counsel, for distribution to the interested property owners and their agents.

Attachments

A District "Sewer Connection Permit" is required in order to hook up to the District's sewer system. A copy of the application and information on fees is attached for your convenience. In addition, a flow chart is attached to help you understand the procedure that is required to obtain a Building Permit from the County of San Mateo.

Additional Requirements. There are additional requirements for properties listed below which staff can explain in more detail:

• Property located in the Seal Cove area.
• Property located on portions of Date and Edison Streets.
• Property requiring a sewer main extension in order to be served.

Sewer Laterals. The property owner is responsible for constructing and maintaining the sewer lateral that extends from the house to the District's sewer main in the street. The District has minimum requirements for these laterals as does the County of San Mateo. The County inspects the lateral from the house to the property line, and the District inspects it from the property line to the point where it connects into the sewer main.

Obtaining a Sewer Connection Permit. Part of the information you must provide to the District in order to obtain a "Sewer Connection Permit" is one set of plans approved by the County Building Department. These plans must show: location of proposed structure, floor plans showing plumbing fixtures, location of sewer lateral, location of cleanouts, elevation of lowest drain, elevation of upstream manhole, location of sewer pump (if needed), and location of check valve (if needed). A summary of these and other design and construction requirements are shown in the attached sheet and discussed more fully in the District's Standard Specifications.

Length of Permits. "Sewer Connection Permits" are issued for a specific property and may not be transferred to another property. Permits are generally void after one year.

Prohibited Connections. There are some items that should not be connected to the sewer system including: roof or yard drains and septic tanks.

Attachments:

1. Application for Sewer Connection Permit
2. Master Fee Schedule
3. Flow Chart

4. Design and Construction Requirements 11/98

Single Family Residence Multiple Family Commercial Other ______

Assessor Parcel Number: ________________________ Lot No. _____________

Address of Property:________________________________________________

Comments:_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In consideration of approval of this application, the undersigned agrees:

• To abide by all provisions of pertinent District and San Mateo County Ordinances.
• To notify the District when the construction is ready for inspection.
• All of the information submitted is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Signed: _____________________________________ Date: ______________

(Owner)

DISCLAIMER:

Revised: 11/98

The full requirements for the design and construction of all sewer laterals and other items connected to the District's sewer system are set forth in the District's Standard Specifications. The following highlights some of the requirements.

Separate Sewers. Each structure requiring sewer service must be separately and independently connected to the main sewer. Upon application, the District may grant an exception where multiple structures on one lot cannot be subdivided.

Pipe Size and Slope. The minimum size of pipe for sewer laterals (also called "side sewers") is 4-inch inside diameter. The minimum slope is 1.0 feet per 100 feet (1.0%).

Pipe Cover. The minimum cover over the top of a lateral must be three feet. If less cover is used, pipe with greater strength than PVC Schedule 40 must be used along with other requirements specified by the District Engineer.

Pipe Materials. The District does not allow Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP) to be used because of its propensity to crack. In standard situations PVC Schedule 40 pipe is acceptable. Table 1 lists all of the approved side sewer or lateral pipe material.

Cleanouts. Cleanouts must be installed at the following locations: a) at the junction of the building plumbing and the side sewer (two feet or less outside the building); b) at each bend or change in direction of the side sewer greater than 45¼ (1/8 bend); and c) where a run of pipe without bends exceeds 90 feet. All cleanouts, except the blowoff cleanout, must be brought to grade, properly capped, and completely watertight.

Backwater Prevention Device. If there is an obstruction in the sewer main sometimes the sewage will backup below that obstruction and may flow into a house. This device allows sewage to flow through it before reaching the house. The details are shown in SD 6 in the Standard Specifications. The elevation of the overflow rim of this device must be at least 3" above finish grade, and at least 6" below the lowest plumbing fixture. In driveways or other paved areas, a line must be installed to the side from a wye to the backwater prevention device. If this installation is not feasible, a check valve must be installed in the side sewer

ahead of the backwater prevention device in accordance with SD 7 of the Standard Specifications.

Check Valve. If the difference between the elevation of the lowest fixture and the backwater prevention device is less than 6", a check valve shall be installed between the backwater prevention device and the house (see SD 7 in Standard Specifications). It is the homeowner's responsibility to have these elevations measured to determine whether or not such a device is necessary. Without this device, backed up sewage will flow into the home and would not flow out of a backwater prevention device since the lowest drain is below the upstream manhole in the street.

Sewer Pumps. When gravity service is not feasible, special application may be made to the District to allow installation of a sewer ejector pump system. Please consult the Standard Specifications for the details of the District requirements. Each property owner is responsible for purchasing and maintaining his or her own pump.

Taps into District Sewer. Tap connections to the main sewer, when permitted, must be made in the presence and at the direction of a District Inspector. Subject to approval of the District, connections must be made as follows: a) 6-inch or less diameter main sewers--a wye or tee; b) 8-inch or more diameter main sewers--"Tap Tite" or equal pipe penetration-type connection.

Existing Side Sewer or Laterals. A new structure is not permitted to connect to an old side sewer unless the old one is tested in the presence of District Inspector, and found to meet all current District requirements, including installation of a backwater prevention device. The property owner must pay all costs for examination and testing.

Laying Pipe. Install lateral pipe the shortest route from the building plumbing outlet to main sewer connection. All pipe must be laid to line and grade. Each length of pipe must be laid on a firm bed as detailed in SD 4 in District's Standard Specifications, and must have full bearing for its entire length between bells. When applicable, an adequate bell hole must be dug at the end of each pipe length for making the joint. Blocking under the lateral will not be permitted. The inside edge of any cut pipe must be beveled, and both bell and spigot must be marked for proper inspection and cleaned before the joint is made. Care must be taken to prevent foreign materials from entering the pipe. Water must be pumped from the trench while the pipes are laid and the joints made. Backfill must be carefully and uniformly placed around the pipe, with no rocks or clods

touching the pipe. In rocky areas, imported bedding material may be required. Pipe must not be covered until inspected by District Inspector.

Inspections. Prior to backfilling, District Inspector must inspect lateral installations and modifications. When required, test for watertightness must be done in the presence of District Inspector. Connections to the main sewer must be done in the presence of District Inspector. Inspections must be scheduled with the District giving three working day advance notice. Inspections are not made on Saturdays, Sundays or holidays.

Excavation and Backfilling Trenches. An encroachment permit is required from the agency maintaining the street. Trenches for laterals within public streets must be excavated and backfilled, and the pavement restored in accordance with the regulations of the State of California, San Mateo County and/or other agency having jurisdiction over the street. The contractor or property owner must pay the cost of compaction test. Consult the District's Standard Specifications for requirements for trenches in slopes.

Testing of Gravity Sewers. Unless otherwise directed by the District, laterals must be tested by plugging and filling with either water or compressed air to 4 p.s.i. For water tests, leakage must not exceed 50 gallons per day per inch of internal diameter per mile of sewer line tested (0.16 gallons per hour per 100 feet of 4" diameter pipe). For air tests, the pressure must not drop more than 1 p.s.i. over a three minute period. Tests must be performed in the presence of District Inspector.

Special Conditions. When encountering special conditions that are not covered by the District's Standard Specifications or Code, the District Engineer will direct the contractor or property owner on the required procedures.

References:

Table 1, Private Side Sewer/Lateral

SD 6, Standard Cleanout and Backwater Prevention Device

SD 7, Backwater Check Valve and Shutoff System

SD 4, Typical Trench Section

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

At the last meeting under the Oral Comments section of the Agenda, Brenda Donald, a homeowner in Montara, outlined her concerns concerning the issuance of sewer permits. Subsequently she has sent the attached letter to the Board as a follow-up of that meeting. In addition, the General Manager of the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside has sent a letter to the Board clarifying his position on this issue. The Board has also received a letter from Warren Donald of Half Moon Bay concerning the issuance of sewer permits.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review the attached correspondence and provide any direction to staff.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

This item is carried over from the meeting of October 1, 1998. At a previous Board meeting the Master Fee Schedule was adopted which established a charge for fixture units based on 1/25^th of the full connection charge. Currently the connection charge is $12,780 with a fixture unit equal to $511 ($12,780 Ö 25). It was decided that in the case of developed property on a septic system paying a Sewer Service Charge, that the cost of the connection charge should be reduced. This is because in paying the Sewer Service Charge, the property owner pays a portion of the debt cost of the capital improvements made to the existing collection system.

However, in reviewing this policy in more detail, it would seem that the same logic could be applied to existing users paying the Sewer Service Charge who want to remodel an existing structure. Currently, they are charged $511 per fixture unit to rough in additional fixtures in advance of the sewer treatment plant expansion certification. However, if the rationale used for those on septic systems were applied, adjusted charges would be as follows:

REMODEL SEPTIC SYSTEM

Full Connection Charge: $12,780 $12,780

Less SAM Phase I and other

Adjusted Charge: $8,150 $12,330

The adjusted charge would be divided by 25 fixture units which gives a per fixture unit charge of $326 in the case of those remodeling. For a parcel on a septic system paying a minimum Sewer Service Charge, the assumption is that the purchase price of that parcel did not reflect connection to the District's system and made no payment toward Phase I improvements. However, the Sewer Service Charge does include an element to pay the principal and interest costs of the Certificate of Participation and Farmers Home Loan that funded improvements to the existing collection system. However, this is contrary to the recommendation of the Bartle Wells report (see attached excerpt) which made no reduction for those on septic systems paying a Sewer Service Charge or those remodeling. However, a case can be made for such a distinction with the following options:

These appear to be the primary alternatives in which a property for development or remodeling would fall. As you can see we do not consider the owner per se but only the property and whether or not a Sewer Service Charge was paid on that specific property. The District's connection charge is property-based and not owner-based. The relevant fact is what charges a specific property paid so that it could be developed or enhanced in some way, and whether the connection charges properly reflect that benefit received.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review the policy of the District, and determine whether or not any changes should be made to the Master Fee Schedule. Advise staff to make the appropriate changes, if any, and present a revised ordinance at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting.

Attachment

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

Jim R. Barry, CPA, M.B.A, of Burlingame, CA. is, as last year, conducting the annual audit for Fiscal Year 1997-1998. Mr Barry has substantially completed the audit, but has not yet received the audited financial statements for the Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside. This, along with some pending responses to requests for information, is needed to finalize the audit. However, he has offered to appear at this meeting to give the Board an overview of the audit and an opportunity to ask questions about the financial statements, accounting procedures or any other matters related to the annual audit.

RECOMMENDATION:

Provide Mr Barry the opportunity to give a brief overview of the Annual Audit for FY 1997/98, and to answer any questions the Board or public may have.

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

The attached letter from the owner of subject property indicates that a water leak occurred on her property in November 1997. She includes a letter from the neighbor, a retired plumber, who repaired the outside leak. The owner did not report the situation to Citizens Utilities or the District at the time because of her husband's death from cancer.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize a refund, upon submission of cancelled checks, to property owner based on an adjusted usage of water of 15 HCF during November and December 1997. This would result in a refund of $237.03 (15 HCF + 15 HCF X $19.753 = $592.59 - $829.62 = $237.03).

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

The property owner of subject property requests a refund or readjustment in the Sewer Service Charge for FY 1998/99. The owner indicates he does not live on the property but uses it only occasionally. He submits a letter from Citizens Utilities indicating they granted an adjustment in October 1997 for "accidental water loss" and again a credit of $301.04 in February 1998. The owner submits a copy of an Invoice from Kensit Plumbing for re-piping the household plumbing system. A cancelled check indicates that the plumber was paid on December 4, 1997.

There are a number of options available to the Board. They range from charging only the minimum charge or something between that amount and the actual amount paid. The minimum Sewer Service Charge for the FY 1998/99 tax year is $315 and the average is $533.25. The Board has previously indicated that any refund should charge the property owner 10% of the Sewer Service Charge amount, not to exceed $200, to offset District administrative costs.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and advise.

Attachments

TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: George F. Irving, District Administrator

The District currently has a boundary line that encompasses the area from Devil's Slide as far south as the Half Moon Bay Airport (see attachment). However, the District is authorized by District ordinance and the Local Coastal Program to actually provide sewer service to a much smaller area. The Board may want to review this matter, and coupled with any input from District Counsel, provide appropriate instruction to staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and advise.

Attachment