News

Pleasanton council approves water rate hikes for PFAS treatment funding plan

Mayor Karla Brown warns, 'It might get expensive' for some ratepayers

Pleasanton water ratepayers can expect a bigger water bill in the future after the Pleasanton City Council unanimously approved a funding plan for final design of the city's per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treatment and wells rehabilitation project on Tuesday.

"If you're a big, big water user, it might get expensive," Mayor Karla Brown said before casting her vote at the Sept. 7 council meeting.

City officials are currently proceeding with the estimated $46 million project's final design to address the detection of PFAS -- synthetic chemicals found in common household items like paint and known to be harmful to humans -- in the city's wells. About $3.3 million for design costs has already been allocated from the water operating fund, leaving $42.7 million in water operating funds, water connection fees, and debt financing to pay the estimated remainder of the project.

During a presentation on Tuesday, city staff said ratepayers will pay an up to $11.60 increase on their bimonthly water bills under the funding plan, assuming a 4% interest rate. Actual water rates charged would be adjusted accordingly, should actual interest rates be lower. Staff said the strategy will reduce the impact to water rates while ensuring funding is available when the project is ready for construction or obtaining equipment.

"This is going to ensure operational reliability of our wells, something I think we're at risk for one," Councilmember Kathy Narum said on Tuesday. "To have that reliable source of clean water for $5 a month on average ... is actually less cost than I thought to construct this project would be."

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month.

Join

Under the plan, an additional $6 million will be allocated to the project for the fiscal years 2023 to 2025 capital improvement program (CIP), with $4 million of that going to the water fund's annual allocation to the CIP.

Another $5.3 million in water connection fees will also be allocated, for about 11.5% of total project costs. The current water connection fee fund balance is $4 million, which could be entirely allocated to the project. According to staff, the remaining $1.3 million in water connection fee revenues will come from future collections, but the city would likely need to borrow against those future collections to ensure funds are available "in a timely fashion."

The city, which collects the fees from new development to offset impacts on the city's water infrastructure, has not updated its water connection fees since the 1980s. An update of the water connection fees is being planned for by the end of 2023, after the Water System Master Plan is completed, staff said.

Councilmember Valerie Arkin said residents have shared concerns about "the sheer high cost of this endeavor" and are "wondering, is there a guarantee that this is going to work."

"Is there anything we can recoup if for some reason it doesn't work?" Arkin said. "Because it's a huge investment, huge amount of taxpayer dollars, and I have gotten that from the public."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Todd Yamello, city utilities planning manager, said the PFAS treatment media "is commonly used to remove lots of different contaminants and it's done successfully" with projects already using the same material to remove PFAS, including many federal remediation sites.

"I don't think there's a lot of risk in the media being able to remove it. I think where there is risk is the cost to do it annually," Yamello said. "We've tried to do testing on our water to see how quickly you basically go through the material and have to replace it to remove the contaminants, and that's where we focused our efforts."

Yamello added, "I'm fairly confident that there's industry proof out there that it will remove contaminants; it's just going to become how expensive is it for us at our site."

In an effort to recover PFAS mitigation costs, city officials also filed a lawsuit against manufacturers of fire-fighting foam and the chemicals used to make them. The lawsuit was consolidated before the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, along with over 500 similar lawsuits.

While it's uncertain if the city's litigation will be resolved or a settlement is received, staff said the project's principal debt will be reduced if any settlement proceeds are received before incurring more project debt. If a settlement is received after incurring debt, the settlement proceeds will be used for debt service payments.

A similar approach will also be used if the city is approved for a grant up to $1.5 million for PFAS remediation projects from the federal Bureau of Reclamation Smart Water Program.

The city will also seek a state revolving fund loan; staff said they will begin the process to issue revenue bonds, "if it looks like the state is unable to meet (the) project timeline for loan funds by May 2022."

A proposal to purchase more water from Zone 7 Water Agency was rejected on Tuesday, on the grounds that the city's water rates would jump 42% to purchase the same amount of water currently pumped by the city, compared to an up to 22% rate increase to issue debt. Staff noted that the rate increase "associated with debt service will remain steady and eventually reduce once the bonds are fully defeased in 30 years."

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow PleasantonWeekly.com and the Pleasanton Weekly on Twitter @pleasantonnews, Facebook and on Instagram @pleasantonweekly for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Pleasanton council approves water rate hikes for PFAS treatment funding plan

Mayor Karla Brown warns, 'It might get expensive' for some ratepayers

by / Pleasanton Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 12:17 pm

Pleasanton water ratepayers can expect a bigger water bill in the future after the Pleasanton City Council unanimously approved a funding plan for final design of the city's per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) treatment and wells rehabilitation project on Tuesday.

"If you're a big, big water user, it might get expensive," Mayor Karla Brown said before casting her vote at the Sept. 7 council meeting.

City officials are currently proceeding with the estimated $46 million project's final design to address the detection of PFAS -- synthetic chemicals found in common household items like paint and known to be harmful to humans -- in the city's wells. About $3.3 million for design costs has already been allocated from the water operating fund, leaving $42.7 million in water operating funds, water connection fees, and debt financing to pay the estimated remainder of the project.

During a presentation on Tuesday, city staff said ratepayers will pay an up to $11.60 increase on their bimonthly water bills under the funding plan, assuming a 4% interest rate. Actual water rates charged would be adjusted accordingly, should actual interest rates be lower. Staff said the strategy will reduce the impact to water rates while ensuring funding is available when the project is ready for construction or obtaining equipment.

"This is going to ensure operational reliability of our wells, something I think we're at risk for one," Councilmember Kathy Narum said on Tuesday. "To have that reliable source of clean water for $5 a month on average ... is actually less cost than I thought to construct this project would be."

Under the plan, an additional $6 million will be allocated to the project for the fiscal years 2023 to 2025 capital improvement program (CIP), with $4 million of that going to the water fund's annual allocation to the CIP.

Another $5.3 million in water connection fees will also be allocated, for about 11.5% of total project costs. The current water connection fee fund balance is $4 million, which could be entirely allocated to the project. According to staff, the remaining $1.3 million in water connection fee revenues will come from future collections, but the city would likely need to borrow against those future collections to ensure funds are available "in a timely fashion."

The city, which collects the fees from new development to offset impacts on the city's water infrastructure, has not updated its water connection fees since the 1980s. An update of the water connection fees is being planned for by the end of 2023, after the Water System Master Plan is completed, staff said.

Councilmember Valerie Arkin said residents have shared concerns about "the sheer high cost of this endeavor" and are "wondering, is there a guarantee that this is going to work."

"Is there anything we can recoup if for some reason it doesn't work?" Arkin said. "Because it's a huge investment, huge amount of taxpayer dollars, and I have gotten that from the public."

Todd Yamello, city utilities planning manager, said the PFAS treatment media "is commonly used to remove lots of different contaminants and it's done successfully" with projects already using the same material to remove PFAS, including many federal remediation sites.

"I don't think there's a lot of risk in the media being able to remove it. I think where there is risk is the cost to do it annually," Yamello said. "We've tried to do testing on our water to see how quickly you basically go through the material and have to replace it to remove the contaminants, and that's where we focused our efforts."

Yamello added, "I'm fairly confident that there's industry proof out there that it will remove contaminants; it's just going to become how expensive is it for us at our site."

In an effort to recover PFAS mitigation costs, city officials also filed a lawsuit against manufacturers of fire-fighting foam and the chemicals used to make them. The lawsuit was consolidated before the U.S. District Court in South Carolina, along with over 500 similar lawsuits.

While it's uncertain if the city's litigation will be resolved or a settlement is received, staff said the project's principal debt will be reduced if any settlement proceeds are received before incurring more project debt. If a settlement is received after incurring debt, the settlement proceeds will be used for debt service payments.

A similar approach will also be used if the city is approved for a grant up to $1.5 million for PFAS remediation projects from the federal Bureau of Reclamation Smart Water Program.

The city will also seek a state revolving fund loan; staff said they will begin the process to issue revenue bonds, "if it looks like the state is unable to meet (the) project timeline for loan funds by May 2022."

A proposal to purchase more water from Zone 7 Water Agency was rejected on Tuesday, on the grounds that the city's water rates would jump 42% to purchase the same amount of water currently pumped by the city, compared to an up to 22% rate increase to issue debt. Staff noted that the rate increase "associated with debt service will remain steady and eventually reduce once the bonds are fully defeased in 30 years."

Comments

George Withers
Registered user
Jensen Tract
on Sep 9, 2021 at 10:07 am
George Withers, Jensen Tract
Registered user
on Sep 9, 2021 at 10:07 am

Have you ever seen a Rate Hike not approved in this State?


Rich Buckley
Registered user
Livermore
on Sep 9, 2021 at 10:43 am
Rich Buckley, Livermore
Registered user
on Sep 9, 2021 at 10:43 am

WATER AND ENERGY

There are so many factions in Energy Production and Water.

The trend in water is to control top down through regulation and privatize all supply sources. Now here's the catch, I personally would rather have a municipal system serving me clean water over digging my own well --- up to a point.

My preference for convenience is somewhat in conflict with water’s nature. But I will adapt as changes become apparent.

PERCOLATED WATER - IS WATER'S NATURE

Furthermore, water has different energy levels depending on how it reaches your body. The best water for the healthiest life giving energies, the holy grail of water, is high terrain rainwater that has flowed, trickled, percolated, through the ground, through the marshes, grasses, and small streams, before you drink it fresh from the stream.

BUT BIG SCIENCE IS NEEDED FOR URBAN AREAS

My sense is we need to bring in big science to use Small Modular Reactors (SMR's) built with the walkaway-safe Thorium Salt fuel, to help balance water back into the holy grail for maximum water health and nutrition. The big science, Walkaway Safe, Molten Salt, Small Modular Reactors (SMR's), reactors with recyclable Thorium for reuse, seems to be a good vehicle for our US Energy grid (and globally as well) offering energy producers enough energy to provide (1) regional Desalination Plants to augment our water systems and (2) drive pumps 24/7/365 to filter and purify local bodies of water and polluted areas (3) Feed into the electric power grid for commercial uses supplementing existing energy sources.

DOING THE RIGHT THING

(1) LAND CONSERVATION
Furthermore SMR’s are scalable from 1.5 - up to 750 + Megawatts and can be done on modest size land portions under 100 acres!

Industrial Solar requires an order of magnitude of 1000 times more precious land.

(2) STOP GEOENGINEERING
End Geoengineering and beaming microwave water globally and let the Earth rebalance.


vp
Registered user
Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 9, 2021 at 2:07 pm
vp, Vintage Hills Elementary School
Registered user
on Sep 9, 2021 at 2:07 pm

I am curious as to what is the cost (per acre foot) for us to draw on and supplement with this cleaned well water.

Total Cost = $42M project cost + city’s annual operating cost (incl. inflation over 30 years)

This important metric is wholly unclear from the article.

We know how much water we draw annually to supplement Zone7’s supply.

Above should be an easy reporting and calculation (wrt understanding the water cost per acre foot for this project).


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.